Shelf 

PRINCETON,    N.    J. 

***** 

BX    5935 

Badger , 

1866. 

An      c*  v  am 

.B13 

George    Edmund, 

inatir\n     nf     thp 

179i 

Digitized. by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/examinationofdocOObadg 


AN  EXAMINATION 


THE  DOCTRINE  DECLARED  AND  THE  POWERS  CLAIMED 


HtjQljt   IFUturenb   IBtaljop  3x>ts, 


A  PASTORAL  LETTER  TO  THE  CLERGY  AND  LAITY 
OF  HIS  DIOCESE. 


BY   A   LAY    MEMBER 

Oh  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA, 


"  We  ought  to  give  more  credit  to  one  private  Layman  than  to  the 
whole  Council  and  to  the  Pope,  if  he  bring  better  authority  and  more  rea- 
son."—Panormitanus,  quoted  with  approbation  by  Jewell. 


33&flaUeIp!)ia: 

H  HOOKER,  S  W.  CORNER  OF  EIGHTH  AND  CHESTNUT  STtf. 

1849. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1849,  by 
Herman  Hooker,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court 
of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


"  It  is  evident  that  God  hath  not  excluded  the  lay  people  that 
believeth  in  him,  from  the  understanding  of  his  holy  secrets." 

Jewell. 


Ignorance  is  "  not  "  the  mother  of  true  devotion. 


"  The  Judges  or  Doctors  of  the  Church,  as  being  men,  are 
often  deceived."— St.  Augustine,  quoted  by  Jewell.* 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER. 


The  Right  Rev.  L.  Silliman  Ives,  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  North  Carolina,  has 
just  issued*  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  his  diocese,  a 
Pastoral  Letter,  which  seems  destined  to  fill,  amongst 
Protestant  Episcopal  Pastorals,  a  place  of  singular 
pre-eminence,  though  by  no  means  of  enviable  distinc- 
tion. It  is,  indeed,  a  very  remarkable  production, 
containing  much  to  sadden  the  heart  of  every  true  son 
of  the  church,  and  not  a  little  to  stir  up  a  feeling 
within  the  diocese  of  just  indignation.  It  demands  a 
full  and  thorough  examination,  and  should  receive 
from  some  member  of  the  church  in  North  Carolina  a 
particular  and  effectual  exposure. 

If  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  be,  as  its  ene- 
mies have  often  said,  but  a  disguised  form  of  Roman- 
ism— if  our  Bishop  be  alone  responsible  for  the  doc- 

*  The  pastoral,  though  dated  8th  August,  did  not  reach  Ra- 
leigh till  Sept.  29th. 

1* 


U  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

trine,  discipline,  and  worship  of  his  diocese,  and  there- 
fore should  have  sole  authority  over  what  he  is  alone 
responsible  for;  if  he  have,  as  a  consequence  of  this 
authority  and  responsibility,  a  right  to  require  from 
his  diocese  implicit  submission  to  any  doctrine  he  may 
think  proper  to  teach ;  a  right  to  introduce  amongst  us 
ceremonies  and  practices  not  only  unknown  here,  not 
only  unknown  throughout  the  church  in  the  United 
States,  but  "  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  customs  of 
the  church  as  established  by  the  English  reformation ;" 
if  the  clergy  and  laity  assembled  in  diocesan  conven- 
tion have  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrines  thus  taught, 
and  the  practices  thus  introduced, — can  institute  no  in- 
quiry, and  express  no  opinion  respecting  them;  if  he 
may  set  forth  at  one  time  teachings  different  from  and 
opposed  to  the  teachings  set  forth  by  him  at  another, 
and  the  members  of  the  church  must  follow  all  his 
fluctuations  of  doctrine  even  as  the  obedient  vane  fol- 
lows the  shiftings  of  the  wind ;  if,  in  one  word,  our 
Bishop  be  within  his  diocese  a  spiritual  lord  and  mas- 
ter over  God's  heritage,  and  have  papal  supremacy 
over  us,  then  it  is  high  time  that  our  actual  state  and 
condition  should  be  known ;  and  if  these  things  be  not 
so,  then  is  it  high  time  that  the  church  at  large  should 
be  disabused,  and  we  vindicated  from  the  suspicion  of 
admitting  such  exorbitant  claims,  and  bowing  down 
in  such  degrading  submission. 

I  propose,  then,  to  examine  a  most  important  doc- 
trinal position  assumed  by  the  Bishop,  to  consider  the 
claim  put  forth  by  him  to  supreme  authority  in  his  di- 


BISHOP  IVES    PASTORAL  LETTER.  7 

ocese,  and  to  ascertain,  by  a  somewhat  particular  in- 
vestigation, whether  his  doctrine,  or  his  claim  of  au- 
thority can  be  supported  by  the  teaching  or  practice 
of  the  reformed  church  of  England,  or  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States.  I  shall, 
also,  notice  other  matters  in  the  pastoral,  so  far  as 
justice  to  the  late  Salisbury  convention,  and  to  the  di- 
ocese, may  seem  to  require. 

In  order  accurately  to  understand  the  Bishop's  doc- 
trinal position,  we  must  go  back  to  a  former  pastoral 
letter,  entitled  "  The  Priestly  Office,"  and  addressed 
to  "the  clergy,"  as  the  present  is  to  "the  clergy  and 
laity"  of  the  diocese. 

In  that  pastoral,  page  12,  he  says,  "But  sins  may 
be  committed  after  baptism — committed  against  the 
vows  of  the  holy  covenant  made  to  God  as  represented 
by  his  ministers.  Hence,  they  were  entrusted  with 
power  to  remit,  upon  true  repentance,  such  sins,  and 
restore  the  offenders  to  the  forfeited  blessings  of  their 
baptismal  state."  Again,  (at  page  16,)  it  is  "  as  true 
now,  as  ever,  that  man  sinning  mortally,  or  so  as  to 
hazard  his  spiritual  life  after  baptism,  stands  in  need 
of  absolution  from  that  priesthood  to  whom  Christ 
said,  '  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them.'  And  if  these  blessings  could  not  be 
reached  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  except  through  the 
priesthood,  how  can  they  now?"  And  again,  (at 
page  24,)  "  For  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  they  (the 
people)  discover  the  depth  of  their  guilt  as  unfaithful 
members  of  Christ's  body — discover  how  helpless  and 


O  AN  EXAMINATION  OP 

hopeless  is  their  condition  as  neglecters  of  the  grace  of 
baptism,  and  violators  of  baptismal  vows,  without  the 
extraordinary  mercy  which  God  has  provided  for  them 
through  e  the  ministry  of  reconciliation,' — perceive  the 
dreadful  hazard  of  that  presumption  which  leads  such 
neglecters  and  violators  to  trust  for  pardon  to  a  vague 
and  general  repentance,  a  repentance  not  accepted 

BY    THE    REPRESENTATIVES    OF    CHRIST,   who    ALONE 

have  charge  of  the  discipline  of  his  church,  or  the 

POWER  TO  REMIT  OR  RETAIN  SINS." 

In  the  present  pastoral,  (page  25,)  the  Bishop,  re- 
ferring to  the  former,  thus  states  its  teaching,  "  This 
is  the  doctrine, — the  necessity  of  priestly  absolution, 
where  it  may  be  had,  to  cancel  or  remit  all  sin  after 
baptism  which  destroys  the  life  of  God  in  the  soul, 
and  separates  it  from  the  grace  of  the  covenant, — which, 
(it  is  said,)  has  called  up  around  your  Bishop  so  many 
pale  faces  and  fainting  hearts.  But  it  is  the  one  on 
which  he  stands  without  fear,  and  will  stand,  by  the 
help  of  God,"  &c.  Again,  at  page  51,  he  says,  "Ab- 
solution not  only  confers  grace,  but  exacts  conditions, 
and  implies  more  or  less  priestly  judgment.  The  con- 
ditions are  comprised  in  one  single  term,  repentance: 
one  part  of  wThich,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  is  con- 
fession. To  ensure  the  effect  of  absolution,  this  con- 
fession must  embrace,  (1.)  Sin  that  separates  the  soul 
from  Christ."  Again,  "Our  confession  must  have 
in  it,  (2.)  both  the  number  and  right  conception  of 
our  sins,  in  order  to  bring  the  soul  into  a  state  of  re- 
mission"    On  the  next  page,  speaking  of  baptized 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  9 

persons  who  have  grown  up  unmindful  of  their  vows, 
&c.,  he  says,  "Would  they  be  able,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, to  take  their  weight,  one  by  one — ex- 
amine the  catalogue  of  their  sins  severally.  But, 
this  must  be  done."  And  again,  at  page  49,  "Be- 
sides, the  form  in  the  English  book  in  the  '  order  for 
the  visitation  of  the  sick,'  shows  conclusively  what  the 
mind  of  our  branch  of  the  church  is  on  the  effect  of 
priestly  absolution.  The  form  is  as  follows:  'Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  his  church 
to  absolve  all  sinners  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in 
Him,  of  His  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences ; 
and  by  His  authority,  committed  to  me,  I  absolve 
thee  from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"  NowT  what  can  show  more  strongly  than  this  that 
the  church  believes,  and  hence  that  we,  as  her  faith- 
ful children,  believe  that  the  priests  when  they  pro- 
nounce these  words  over  the  truly  penitent,  do  convey, 
really  and  directly,  God's  pardon  to  their  consciences 
for  all  their  sins  and  offences  committed  against  Him?" 

Now,  putting  these  passages  together,  it  evidently 
appears  that,  according  to  the  Bishop's  views,  in  or- 
der to  the  remission  of  certain  sins  committed  after 
baptism,  priestly  absolution,  if  it  may  be  had,  is  ne- 
cessary, and  these  sins  are  described  by  him,  at  one 
time,  as  sins  "committed  against  the  vows  ofthebap- 
tismal  covenant ;"  again,  as  those  "  which  hazard  the 
spiritual  life;"  again,  as  those  which  "destroy  the  life 
of  God  in  the  soul,  and  separate  it  from  the  grace  of 


10  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

the  covenant,"  and,  finally,  as  mortal  sins,  "sinning 
mortally,"  being  his  exact  phrase.  Again,  it  is  evi- 
dent that,  according  to  his  views,  in  order  to  ensure 
the  effect  of  priestly  absolution,  a  particular  confession 
must  be  made  of  all  such  sins.  In  the  next  place,  it 
seems  clear  that  the  Bishop  refers  to  some  other  abso- 
lution than  that  pronounced  in  the  public  service  of 
the  church,  and  to  some  other  confession  than  the 
public  general  one  there  made,  or  the  private  particu- 
lar confession  to  God  alone,  recommended  and  enjoined 
by  the  church;  for,  although  he  says,  (page  51,) 
"  'While,  therefore,  private  confession  is  not  regarded 
by  our  branch  of  the  one  Catholic  church,'  as  gene- 
rally necessary  to  salvation,  and,  hence,  as  in  the  pri- 
mitive church,  is  left  to  the  voluntary  action  of  indi- 
viduals under  contrition  moving  them  thereto;  yet  as 
priestly  absolution  from  all  deadly  sin,*  after  baptism, 
is  regarded  necessary,  it  becomes  a  question  for  each 
one  to  determine  how  far  the  effects  of  such  absolu- 
tion may  or  may  not  depend  upon  this  kind  of  confes- 

*  It  may  be  proper  to  say  that  deadly  or  mortal  sins,  according 
to  Romish  writers,  are  these  seven — pride,  covetousness,  lust, 
anger,  gluttony,  envy,  sloth.  (See  Ursuline  Manual,  p.  52.) 
From  a  consideration  of  this  list,  it  may  appear  that  "sinning 
mortally"  after  baptism  is  by  no  means  a  rare  occurrence,  and 
some  notion  may  be  formed  how  often,  how  very  often,  baptized 
persons  stand  in  need  of  priestly  absolution  as  contradistin- 
guished from  the  forgiveness  which,  for  venial  sins,  may  be 
had  upon  prayer  to  God  without  recourse  to  a  priest,  unless,  in- 
deed, these  venial  sins  are  not  to  be  forgiven,  but  reserved  for 
cleansing  in  the  fire  of  purgatory ! ! 


11 

sion.  What  the  church  has  not  enjoined  as  necessary, 
may  become  so,  however,  by  the  moral  state  of  indi- 
viduals. What  is  not  imposed  as  a  condition,  may  be, 
in  certain  cases,  required  as  a  means."  Yet  he  says, 
on  the  same  page,  "Absolution  not  only  confers 
grace,  but  exacts  conditions,  and  implies,  more  or 
less,  priestly  judgment.  The  conditions  are  com- 
prised in  the  single  term — repentance;  one  part  of 
which,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  is — confession.  To 
ensure  the  effect  of  absolution,  this  confession  must 
embrace  sin  that  separates  the  soul  from  communion 
with  Christ.  St.  Chrysostom,  as  quoted  with  appro- 
bation by  Hooker,  says,  '  To  call  ourselves  sinners 
availeth  nothing,  except  as  we  lay  our  faults  in  the 
balance  and  take  the  weight  of  them  one  by  one. 
(2.)  Again,  our  confession  must  have  in  it  both  the 
number  and  right  conception  of  our  sins,  in  order  to 
bring  the  soul  into  a  state  of  remission.5  And  after- 
wards, (52,)  "  Further  absolution  looks  to  the  cure 
of  sin  as  well  as  its  remission"  Again,  he  (Hook- 
er,) says,  "  The  knowledge  how  to  handle  our  sins  is 
no  vulgar  and  common  art,  and  the  reason  he  gives  is, 
that  we  are  prone  to  be  partial  and  over-tender 
with  ourselves,  and,  besides,  that  we  often  fall  into 
*  timorous  scrupulosities,  and  so  into  extreme  discom- 
forts of  mind;'  hence,  that  earnest  men  in  the  primi- 
tive church  thought  it  "the  safest  way  to  disclose 
their  secret  faults,  and  crave  imposition  of  penance 
from  them  whom  our  Lord  Jesus  ChiHst  hath  left  in 
his  church  to  be  spiritual  and  ghostly  physicians. 


12  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

the  guides  and  pastors  of  redeemed  souls,  whose  of- 
fice doth  not  only  consist  in  general  persuasions  unto 
amendment  of  life,  but  also  in  the  private  particular 
cure  of  diseased  souls !  But  how  can  this  benefit 
be  secured  in  the  present  state  of  confession?  How 
can  the  physician  prescribe  in  wisdom  and  honesty 
without  knowing  the  disease?'" 

Now  if  this  priestly  absolution  implies  "priestly 
judgment,"  it  cannot  be  the  public  absolution  of  the 
church  which  is  meant,  for  that  is  directed  to  be  given 
upon  a  public  confession  in  prescribed  terms,  and  no- 
thing is  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  priest,  and  hence  a 
private  absolution  must  be  intended.  And  if  a  confes- 
sion of  "  all  sins  that  separate  the  soul  from  commu- 
nion with  Christ,"  "laying  our  faults  in  the  balance, 
and  taking  the  weight  of  them  one  by  one,"  and  "■  having 
in  it  both  the  number  and  right  conception  of  sins," 
be  necessary  to  ensure  the  benefit  of  such  absolution ; 
if  the  priest  is  to  exercise  his  judgment  upon  this  re- 
pentance, and  if  this  judgment  cannot  be  exercised  "in 
the  present  state  of  confession ;"  if  men's  "secret 
faults"  must  be  disclosed  to  the  priest  in  order  that 
he  may  exercise  his  functions  "  in  the  private  particu- 
lar cure  of  diseased  souls;"  if  he  cannot  "in  honesty 
prescribe,  as  a  spiritual  physician,  without  knowing 
the  disease,  and  if  the  disease  consists  of  "  all  mortal 
sins;"  if  it  is  "presumption  for  neglecters  of  the  grace 
of  baptism,  and  violators  of  baptismal  vows  to  trust 
for  pardon  to  a  repentance  not  accepted  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  Christ;"  and  if  the  repentance  to  be  ac- 


BISHOP  IVES    PASTORAL  LETTER.  lo 

cepted  includes  as  one  part  of  it  a  particular  confession 
of  all  mortal  sins;  doth  it  not  evidently  follow  that, 
according  to  the  Bishop's  teaching,  private  absolution 
by  a  priest,  to  be  given  upon  a  particular  confession, 
made  to  him  of  all  mortal  sins  is  necessary  to  the  re- 
mission thereof? 

Now,  according  to  this  doctrine,  what  has  become 
of  the  thousands  of  Christians  of  our  communion  who 
have  been  committed  to  the  grave,  as  we  humbly 
thought,  in  the  hope  of  a  joyful  resurrection  ?  How 
many  of  them  were  baptized  in  infancy,  and  for  a  long 
time  were  "violators  of  their  baptismal  vows,"  or  had 
fallen  into  mortal  sins  after  baptism,  and,  upon  being 
awakened  to  a  sense  of  their  sinfulness,  had  trusted 
to  a  "  repentance  not  accepted  "  by  a  priest  for  par- 
don? Or  rather,  of  all  those,  what  one  had  submitted 
his  repentance  to  a  priest,  or  sought  his  aid  in  the 
"private,  particular  cure  of  his  diseased  soul," — what 
one  of  them  had  disclosed  all  fiis  secret  faults  to  his 
spiritual  physician,  in  order  that  by  priestly  judgment 
his  repentance  might  be  accepted,  and  priestly  abso- 
lution be  obtained  ?  Had  one,  of  them  all,  done  this? 
Is  it,  then,  "presumption"  to  hope  that  their  sins 
were  remitted,  and  must  we  conclude  that  their  souls 
are  lost?  But  it  may  still  be  said  upon  certain  pas- 
sages in  the  Bishop's  present  pastoral,  one  of  which  I 
have  quoted,  that  the  Bishop  does  not  intend  to  assert 
as  doctrine  what  so  evidently  follows  from  the  passages 
I  have  quoted — that  although  he  seems  so  to  teach — 
although  his  positions  necessarily  lead,  by  just  reason- 
2 


14  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

ing,  to  such  a  conclusion — yet  that  he  did  not  mean 
it.  I  admit  that  the  several  parts  of  the  Bishop's 
teaching  do  not  stand  well  together — that  his  doc- 
trine, though  spread  over  many  pages,  is  no  where 
fully  and  precisely  stated.  But  beyond  the  possibility 
of  doubt,  denial  or  mistake,  he  has  taught  and  intended 
to  teach  this — that  priestly  absolution,  when  it  may 
be  had,  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin — 
that  to  the  effect  of  such  absolution,  a  particular  con- 
fession of  all  mortal  sins,  one  by  one  numbering  and 
weighing  them,  is  a  necessary  condition — and  that  the 
church  advises  and  recommends  in  some  cases  such 
confession  of  all  mortal  sins  to  be  made  unto  a 
priest,  either  as  a  necessary  means  to  bring  the  soul 
into  "a  state  of  remission,"  or"  else  as  a  useful  and 
valuable  aid  to  such  result. 

Either,  then,  the  Bishop's  doctrine  is,— 

1.  That  private  particular  confession  of  mortal  sins 
to  a  priest,  with  priestiy  absolution  thereupon,  where 
it  may  be  had,  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  such 
sins. 

Or  else — 

2.  That  priestly  absolution,  where  it  may  be  had, 
is  necessary — that  as  the  condition  on  which  such  ab- 
solution may  have  effect,  a  particular  confession  of  all 
mortal  sins  is  necessary,  and  that,  either  as  a  neces- 
sary means,  or  a  useful  and  valuable  aid,  such  confes- 
sion of  all  mortal  sins  ought,  in  so?ne  cases,  to  be 
made  to  a  priest. 

Now  I  shall  undertake  to  show  that  the  Bishop's 
doctrine,  taken  either  way,  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the 


15 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  or 
of  the  Reformed  Church  of  England.  Although  I 
shall  address  the  proof  directly  and  chiefly  to  the  first 
statement  of  the  Bishop's  doctrine — the  necessity  of 
priestly  absolution  upon  a  particular  private  confession 
to  the  priest,  in  order  to  obtain  remission  of  sins, 
which  I  take  to  be,  and  think  I  have  shown  is,  the 
doctrine  he  teaches;  yet,  I  hope  to  show  clearly,  also, 
that  the  other  statement  of  it  is  equally  without  sup- 
port— that  neither  church  any  where  directs  or  re- 
commends, on  any  occasion,  a  particular  confession 
to  be  made  of  all  mortal  sins  to  a  priest,  either  as  a 
necessary  means,  or  a  useful  and  valuable  assistance 
to  obtaining  remission,  or  for  any  other  purpose, 
and  that  neither  church  holds  that  priestly  absolution 
is  ever  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

I.  The  Bishop's  doctrine  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States. 

If  it  be  her  doctrine,  it  must  be  found  in  her  Prayer 
Book,  or  Articles,  or  in  some  book  or  books  referred 
to  by  her  as  containing  a  statement  of  her  doctrine. 

But  it  is  not  found  in  either. 

She  no  where  commands,  or  requires,  or  directs, 
confession  of  sins  to  be  made  to  a  priest.  She  calls 
upon  her  children  in  her  morning  and  evening  prayers, 
and  at  the  communion,  to  confess,  but  it  is  to  confess 
unto  God,  and  she  provides  forms  of  confession,  which, 
so  far  from  being  made  to  the  priest,  or  to  God 
"  through  the  priest,"  are  made  by  the  priest  and  people 
together,  as  sinners  all  needing  and  suing  for  forgive- 


16  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

ness  to  God ;  the  people  no  more  confessing  to  God 
through  him  than  he  through  them.  This  confession 
is  conceived  in  the  most  general  terms,  without  any 
specification  of  any  particular  sin  whatever,  and  yet 
evidently  designed  to  include  "mortal  sins,"  for  it  con- 
cludes with  the  acknowledgment  that  "  there  is  no 
health  in  us ;"  and  she,  then,  by  the  same  confession, 
instructs  and  leads  us  at  once  to  approach  God  with 
supplication  for  pardon. 

And  yet  the  church,  in  the  preceding  Exhortation, 
teaches  that  this  public  occasion  is  not  one  on  which 
there  is  less  necessity  for  confessing  our  sins,  than  on 
all  or  some  other  occasions,  but  that  this  is  the  very 
occasion  on  which  confession  is  demanded  above  others. 
For  in  that  exhortation,  after  declaring  that  "we 
ought,  at  all  times,  humbly  to  acknowledge  our  sins 
before  God,"  she  adds,  "yet  ought  we  chiefly  so  to 
do  when  we  assemble  and  meet  together  ".for  the  pur- 
poses for  which  we  are  then  assembled.  And  upon 
this  general  confession  unto  God,  the  church  authorizes 
and  directs  to  be  used  the  only  forms  of  absolution 
which  her  services  any  where  contain  or  recognise. 
If,  then,  in  the  judgment  of  the  church,  on  that  occa- 
sion which  chiefly,  and  by  way  of  pre-eminence  re- 
quires us  to  confess  our  sins  "  with  an  humble,  lowly, 
penitent  and  obedient  heart,  to  the  end  that  we  may 
obtain  forgiveness  of  the  same,"  a  general  confession  to 
Almighty  God  with,  and  not  to  or  through,  the  priest, 
is  all  which  she  requires ;  if,  upon  such  confession,  she 
authorizes  her  absolution  to  be  declared,  that  thereby 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  17 

we  may  obtain,  or  be  assured  that  we  obtain,  or  have 
obtained,  the  end  of  that  confession,  to  wit,  forgive- 
ness of  our  sins,  it  follows  that  we  cannot,  upon  any 
occasion  of  confession  less  than  this  chief  one,  be  re- 
quired by  her  to  make  a  particular  confession  to  the 
priest  or  indirectly  to  God  through  him,  as  neces- 
sary to  the  remission  of  our  sins.  For  the  end  of  con- 
fession, as  she  teaches,  is  to  obtain  forgiveness;  this 
end  may  be  obtained  upon  a  general  confession  or  it 
may  not.  If  it  may  not,  then  the  whole  confession 
and  absolution  are  an  impious  mockery  of  God,  and  a 
cruel  delusion  of  her  children ;  if  it  may,  then  the  end 
of  confession  being  obtainable,  and  by  the  truly  peni- 
tent and  believing  obtained,  on  this  chief  occasion  of 
confession,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  a  particular  confes- 
sion to  a  priest  necessary,  on  any  other  occasion,  to 
obtain  such  remission.  In  the  Catechism,  the  question 
is  asked,  "  What  is  required  of  those  who  come  to  the 
Lord's  Supper?"  And  the  answer  is,  "That  they 
examine  themselves  whether  they  repent  them  truly 
of  their  former  sins,"  &c, — not  that  they  submit  their 
repentance  to  the  examination  of  a  priest.  This  is 
the  authoritative  teaching  by  the  church  of  what  is 
required  from  communicants,  as  to  the  examination  to 
be  made  whether  they  truly  repent  of  their  sins.  Here, 
if  the  church  deemed  confession  to  a  priest  necessary, 
she  would  have  laid  it  down  as  "doctrine;"  but  she 
lays  down  no  such  thing.  She  says  nothing  about  a 
priest,  or  a  confession  to  a  priest,  because  she  thought 

neither  necessary ;  she  says  nothing  about  classes  of 

9# 


18  AN   EXAMINATION  OF 

sins;  for,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  what  she  thought 
of  one  class,  she  thought  of  all .  She  required  examina- 
tion of  himself  to  be  made  by  the  communicant,  as 
to  all  his  sins ;  because  she  deemed  this  all  that  the 
necessity  of  the  case  required.  In  her  first  exhorta- 
tion in  the  communion  office,  she  repeats  the  same 
doctrine,  saying,  "Search  and  examine  your  own 
consciences,"  &c,  and  then  informs  us  how  this  should 
be  done — "  The  way  and  means  thereto  is,  first,  to 
examine  your  lives  and  conversations  by  the  rule  of 
God's  commandments,  and  whereinsoever  you  shall 
perceive  yourselves  to  have  offended,  either  by  will, 
word  or  deed,  there  to  bewail  your  own  sinfulness, 
and  to  confess  yourselves  to  Almighty  God,  with  full 
purpose  of  amendment"  &c;  here,  again,  not  one 
word  is  said  as  to  the  necessity  of  priestly  intervention, 
— the  exercise  of  "priestly  judgment"  to  pass  upon 
our  repentance ;  we  are  to  conduct  the  examination  by 
the  "rule  of  God's  commandments,"  and  whereinso- 
ever we  shall  discover  that  we  have  offended  by  will, 
word  or  deed,  are  to  confess  ourselves  directly  to  God, 
and  not  to  a  priest,  or  through  a  priest.  These  are 
the  directions  given  by  the  church  for  carrying  into 
practice  the  "doctrine"  laid  down  in  the  Catechism. 
These  explain  by  the  action  required,  what  was  the 
doctrine  taught — these  are  the  church's  own  commen- 
tary on  her  own  doctrine,  and  here,  as  in  the  Cate- 
chism, she  is  utterly  silent  as  to  any  priestly  offices 
whatever. 

In  the  conclusion  of  this  exhortation  occurs  the  only 


BISHOP  IVES*  PASTORAL  LETTER.  1\) 

reference  to  the  interposition  of  a  "minister"  in  this 
preparation.  It  is  in  these  words:  "And  because  it 
is  requisite  that  no  man  should  come  to  the  holy  com- 
munion, but  with  a  full  trust  in  God's  mercy,  and 
with  a  quiet  conscience ;  therefore,  if  there  be  any  of 
you,  who  by  this  means  cannot  quiet  his  own  con- 
science herein,  but  requireth  further  comfort  or  coun- 
sel ;  let  him  come  to  me,  or  to  some  other  minister  of 
God's  word,  and  open  his  grief;  that  he  may  receive 
such  godly  counsel  and  advice,  as  may  tend  to  the 
quieting  of  his  conscience,  and  the  removing  of  all 
scruple  and  doubtfulness." 

Now,  the  first  observation  which  occurs  on  this 
most  wise  and  suitable  counsel  is,  that  it  contains  no 
recommendation  or  advice  that  a  particular  "confes- 
sion of  all  mortal  sins,  one  by  one,"  should  be  made 
to  the  minister,  and  implies  no  such  recommendation. 
It  supposes  a  person,  after  using  the  means  before 
pointed  out  by  the  church,  to  be  "unable  to  quiet  his 
own  conscience,"  and  therefore  requiring  "further 
comfort  or  counsel,"  and  such  an  one  is  invited  to 
come  to  a  minister  and  "open  his  grief,"  not  to  make 
"  a  confession  of  all,"  nor  so  far  as  appears,  of  any 
"of  his  mortal  sins,"  but  to  open  his  grief— to  ex- 
plain the  particular  difficulty  or  difficulties  which  pre- 
vent him  from  obtaining  a  quiet  conscience.  Now 
this  difficulty  may  or  may  not  arise  from  a  mortal  sin ; 
but  whatever  it  may  be,  this  only  is  to  be  opened  to 
the  minister,  for  the  end  of  coming  to  him  at  all  is  to 
obtain  a  quiet  conscience  by  his  assistance;  if  it  can 


20  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

be  obtained  without  such  assistance,  the  church  does 
not  recommend  the  communicant  to  come  at  all;  and, 
as — in  the  case  supposed  by  the  church,  his  "grief" 
being  comforted,  and  his  "scruples"  removed  by  the 
assistance  of  the  minister,  all  is  done  which  the  church 
designed — further  confession  would  plainly  be  beside 
the  purpose  in  view,  and  is,  therefore,  not  implied, 
as  it  is  not  expressed  by  her  language. 

The  next  observation  to  be  made  upon  this  con- 
cluding part  of  the  exhortation  is,  that  the  church 
neither  speaks  of,  nor  alludes  to  "absolution"  to  be 
obtained  from  the  minister.  "  Godly  counsel  and  ad- 
vice," and  not  absolution,  is  what  she  requires  the 
troubled  sinner  to  ask,  and  the  minister  to  give.  She 
neither  directs,  recommends,  nor  allows  the  minis- 
ter to  give  "absolution." 

The  Bishop,  in  his  present  pastoral,  at  page  49,  has 
this  passage: — "Besides,  the  form  in  the  English 
book  in  'the  order  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick,' 
shows  conclusively  what  the  mind  of  our  hranch  of 
the  church  is  on  the  effect  of  priestly  absolution." 

Now,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  that  form 
in  the  English  office  shows  the  mind  of  the  English 
church  to  accord  with  the  Bishop's  as  to  the  effect  of 
priestly  absolution,  it  is  plain  it  cannot  show  at  all  the 
mind  of  "our  branch  of  the  church," — the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States.  For  what 
sort  of  an  argument  is  this?  There  is  a  passage  in  the 
English  book  which  proves  the  mind  of  the  American 
church  when  it  is  not  in  the  American  book — or  rather 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  21 

a  passage  was  in  the  American  book,  and  the  Ameri- 
can church  struck  it  out,  and  yet  the  American  church 
is  shown  thereby  to  have  the  same  mind  as  if  she  had 
kept  it  in.  How  vainly,  then,  did  our  church  revise 
the  English  liturgy — whether  on  that  revision  she  de- 
liberately struck  out  or  retained  any  thing,  is  a  matter 
of  no  importance,  for,  according  to  the  Bishop,  what- 
ever is  left  in  the  English  book,  though  put  out  of 
ours,  remains  always  the  conclusive  exposition  of  the 
opinions  of  those  who  reject,  as  well  as  those  who  re- 
tain it.  Why,  is  it  not  plain  (if  this  be  so,)  that  we 
are  not  an  independent  national  church  at  all — that  we 
have  no  power  over  doctrine  or  discipline,  but,  whether 
we  will  or  not,  must  ever  have,  (virtually  and  in  ef- 
fect,) the  English  church  to  be,  in  both,  our  ruler  and 
guide. 

Let  us  try  this  reasoning  of  the  Bishop  by  two  other 
cases.  The  rubric,  before  the  apostles'  creed,  in  our 
prayer  book,  declares  that  any  church  may  omit  the 
words  "he  descended  into  hell."  Will  the  Bishop 
cite  the  English  book,  which  has  no  such  rubric,  to 
show  "conclusively  the  mind  of  our  branch  of  the 
church "  that  these  words  may  not  be  omitted,  but 
must  be  said?  Again,  the  English  prayer  book  con- 
tains a  creed  called  "the  Creed  of  Saint  Athanasius," 
which,  by  a  rubric,  is  directed  to  be  said  on  Christmas 
and  certain  other  days,  both  creed  and  rubric  have 
been,  by  our  church,  stricken  out;  now, will  the  Bishop 
cite  that  rubric  from  the  English  book  to  show  the 
"mind  of  our  branch  of  the  church,"  that  a  clergyman 


22  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

must  or  may  read  that  creed  on  Christmas  next  in  a 
church  in  North  Carolina?  Our  church  may  agree 
with  the  English  as  to  the  effect  of  priestly  absolution, 
but  it  is  certain  that  agreement  cannot  be  shown  by 
what  is  contained  in  their  Prayer  Book,  and  designedly 
struck  out  of  ours. 

The  office  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick  set  forth  by 
our  church,  contains  no  direction  or  recommendation 
of  any  kind  for  confession  of  sins  to  the  priest,  or  for 
absolution  by  him,  and  the  only  office  in  which  such 
confession  is  directed  at  all,  is  that  for  the  Visitation  of 
Prisoners.  In  this  office,  for  a  prisoner  under  sentence 
of  death,  is  a  rubric  which  directs  that  the  minister 
shall  "examine  whether  he  repent  him  truly  of  his 
sins,  exhorting  him  to  a  'particular  confession  of  the 
sin  for  which  he  is  condemned"  And,  "after  his 
confession,"  is  to  disclose  to  him  "  the  pardoning  mercy 
of  God  in  the  form  which  is  used  in  the  communion 
office."  On  this  several  remarks  naturally  present 
themselves.  First,  that  the  church  by  exhorting  to  a 
particular  confession  of  one  sin  only,  excludes  the 
idea  of  recommending  a  particular  confession  of  all 
sins,  or  all  mortal  sins.  Second,  that  when  the  church 
directs  the  minister  to  "examine"  whether  a  person 
"  repents  him  truly  of  his  sins,"  she  means  not  thereby 
a  confession  to  be  made  of  those  sins  to  the  minister, 
for  this  examination  she  directs  in  the  above  quoted 
rubric,  and  therein  exhorts  the  prisoner  to  a  particular 
confession  of  one  sin,  which  would  be  absurd  if  the 
examination  implied  a  confession  of  all  his  sins.    Third, 


23 

that  the  church  speaks  not  of  "absolution  to  be  pro- 
nounced," but  "the  pardoning  mercy  of  God  to  be 
declared  "  in  a  certain  form,  which  after  asserting  that 
God  has  promised  to  forgive  all  true  penitents,  con- 
cludes with  a  prayer  that  he  may  have  mercy  upon 
and  pardon  the  person  or  persons  to  whom  the  decla- 
ration is  made.     Now,  to  me,  it  is  evident  that  the 
church  does  not  design  this  as  an  absolution ;  because 
the  words  used  do  not,  of  themselves,  impart  "  an  ab- 
solution," and  the  sense  in  which  the  church  uses 
them  must  be  determined  by  something  else  than  the 
form  itself, — because  the  church  does  not  here  style  the 
form  "an  absolution,"  or  "a  declaration  of  absolu- 
tion;" because  the  church  had  at  her  revision  of  the 
English  prayer  book  carefully  stricken  out  of  the  ex- 
hortation in  the  communion  office,  and  in  the  visitation 
office  of  the  sick,  all  reference  to  absolution,  and  she 
cannot,  therefore,  be  supposed,  from  an  equivocal  act, 
to  intend  to  insert  here  what  she  then  struck  out ;  be- 
cause as  the  prayer  book  stood  until  within  a  few 
years,  the  word  in  the  rubric  was  "minister"  and  not 
"priest,"  the  latter  word  having  been  recently  intro- 
duced, without,  so  far  as  I  am  able  to  find,  any  law- 
ful authority  of  the  church; — and   because,   finally, 
of  the  opinion  of  Bishop  White  as  to  the  meaning  and 
effect  of  this  very  form.     His  words  are,  (I  quote 
from  the  notes  of  Bishop  Brownell's  prayer  book,) 
"the  correct  doctrine,  as  apparent  to  me,  is,  that  the 
truth  of  the  form  applies  at  any  time,  and  by  whom- 
soever said,  the  proper  conditions  being  found:  and 


24  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

that  the  only  difference  between  its  being  declared  by 
a  proper  minister,  or  by  another  person,  is,  that  the 
former  is  acting  under  commission ;  a  circumstance 
most  likely  to  wing  what  he  says  with  comfort" 
If,  in  this  view,  I  am  correct,  there  is  no  place  or 
passage  in  the  prayer  book  which  teaches  private  ab- 
solution to  be  necessary,  or  recommends  such  absolu- 
tion as  advisable,  or  declares  or  implies  it  to  be  al- 
lowable— and  so  the  Bishop's  position  has  no  support 
from  the  prayer  book.  If,  on  the  contrary,  I  am  in- 
correct in  this  view,  the  consequence  is  fatal  to  the 
Bishop's  position  as  being  held  by  our  branch  of  the 
church.  For  then  the  church,  in  the  office  for  the  vi- 
sitation of  prisoners,  intends  "a  priestly  absolution" 
to  be  pronounced  to  a  condemned  malefactor  of  all  his 
sins,  whilst  yet  he  is  supposed  by  her  to  have  made  a 
particular  confession  of  one  only.  The  Bishop's  doc- 
trine is,  that  to  the  effect  of  priestly  absolution,  a 
particular  confession  of  all  mortal  sins  is  necessary — 
which  doctrine  the  church  holds  not,  if  in  this  form 
she  intends  a  priestly  absolution — for  the  words  of  the 
form  are  "pardon  and  deliver  you  from  all  your  sins," 
and  yet  the  church  exhorts  only  to  the  confession  of 
one,  so  that,  upon  the  supposition  of  a  priestly  abso- 
lution being  here  intended,  the  church  holds  that  mor- 
tal sin  may  be  remitted  by  a  priestly  absolution  without 
a  confession  thereof,  and  the  only  exception  here  made 
is  of  mortal  sin,  for  which  judgment  of  death  has  been 
given,  and,  therefore,  he  who  hath  not  received  such 
judgment  of  death,  according  to  the  church,  need  not 


25 

confess  to  the  priest  any  mortal  sin.  Therefore  it 
follows  that  he  who  confesses  his  sins  to  God  only, 
(not  being  under  judgment  of  death,)  may  have  par- 
don thereof  through  an  absolution  in  a  certain  form 
pronounced  by  a  priest, — and  by  necessary  consequence, 
this  same  form  being  pronounced  by  a  priest  in  the 
public  service,  upon  a  confession  there  made  to  God 
only,  may  convey  like  pardon,  unless  it  shall  be  held 
that  the  virtue  of  a  form  used  by  a  priest  is  less  in  a 
church  than  in  a  prison,  but  this  no  Christian  will 
dare  to  maintain. 

The  Bishop  seems  to  be  rather  at  a  loss  to  produce 
any  evidence  from  our  own  Liturgy  and  Articles  to 
support  his  doctrine,  and,  therefore,  generally  refers 
to  what  is  in  the  English  book,  and  is  not  in  ours ;  on 
this  mode  of  proof  I  have  already  remarked.  But 
he  alleges  certain  passages  from  the  works  of  the  late 
Bishop  Ravenscroft,  whom  he  well  calls  "lamented," 
and  "noble  prelate;"  for  a  noble  prelate  he  was,  and 
lamented  he  is,  and  always  will  be  by  all  who  knew 
him.  But  do  the  passages  cited  from  Bishop  Ravens- 
croft teach  the  doctrine  advanced  by  Bishop  Ives? 
Most  certainly  not.  Bishop  Ives  admits  that  his  pre- 
decessor in  those  passages  "  did  not  make  priestly  ab- 
solution the  immediate  subject  of  either  of  the  dis- 
courses" from  which  the  quotations  are  taken.  And 
where  is  the  evidence  that  he  alluded  therein  to  that 
subject?  There  is  none.  He  asserts,  indeed,  that 
one  end  of  the  gospel  ministry  (as  Bishop  Ives  quotes 
him)  is  "the  communication  of  the  gospel  to  mankind 


/ 


26  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

in  order  to  recover  them  from  the  ruin  and  misery  of 
sin,"  &c.;  but  does  it  therefore  follow  that  confession 
must  or  may  be  made  to  a  priest?  He  asserts  that 
another  purpose  of  that  ministry  is  to  "  transact  the 
conditions  of  that  recovery,  by  receiving  the  sub- 
mission of  penitent  sinners,  and  administering  to  such 
the  divinely  appointed  pledges  of  pardon?  and  adop- 
tion into  the  family  of  God."  What  then?  must 
confession  be  made  of  all  mortal  sins  to  a  priest?  Are 
confession  and  priestly  absolution  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed pledges  of  pardon  and  adoption  ?  Does  not 
every  body  know  that,  according  to  the  church,  this 
pardon  and  adoption  are  sealed  to  us  in  baptism? 
Bishop  Ravenscroft  asserts  that  the  ministry  are  "  to 
watch  over  the  household  of  faith,  and  to  exercise  the 
discipline  of  Christ;"  but  is  it  a  fair  conclusion  from 
this  to  say  priestly  absolution  is  necessary  to  the  re- 
mission of  sin?  True,  Bishop  Ravenscroft  claims  for 
the  ministry  the  power  of  "  the  keys;"  but  what  fol- 
lows? that  private  confession  to  a  priest  and  absolu- 
tion thereupon  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins  ? 
Does  claiming  the  jioiver  of  the  keys  determine  the 
sense  in  which  this  power  is  to  be  understood  ?  What 
is  the  power  of  the  keys?  Hear  what  Jewell  teaches 
in  his  "Apology,"  that  noble  confession  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Reformed  Church  of  England.  (Jewell's  Works, 
Ox.  ed.,  1848.  Vol.  VIIL,  p.  289.)  "And  touch- 
ing the  keys,  wherewith  they  may  either  shut  or  open 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  we,  with  Chrysostom  say, 
they  be  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures;  with  Ter- 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  27 

Italian  we  say,  they  be  'the  interpretation  of  the 
•law;'  and  with  Eusebius  we  call  them  'the  word  of 
God.'  Moreover  that  Christ's  diseiples  did  receive 
this  authority,  not  that  they  should  hear  the  private 
confessions  of  the  people  and  listen  to  their  whis- 
perings, as  the  common  massing  priests  do  every 
where  now-a-days ;  and  do  it  so  as  though  in  that  one 
point  lay  all  the  virtue  and  use  of  the  keys ;  but  to 
the  end  they  should  go — they  should  teach — they 
should  publish  abroad  the  gospel,  and  be  unto  the  be- 
lieving a  sweet  savour  of  life  unto  life,  and  unto  the 
unbelieving  and  unfaithful  a  savour  of  death  unto 
death;  and  that  the  minds  of  godly  persons  being 
brought  low  by  the  remorse  of  their  former  life  and 
errors,  after  they  once  began  to  look  up  unto  the  light 
of  the  gospel,  and  believe  in  Christ,  might  be  opened 
with  the  word  of  God.,  even  as  a  door  is  opened  with 
a  key: — contrariwise, that  the  wicked  and  wTilful  folk, 
and  such  as  would  not  believe,  nor  return  unto  the 
right  way,  should  be  left  still  as  fast  locked  and  shut 
up,  and  as  Saint  Paul  saith,  'wax  worse  and  worse.' 
This  take  we  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  keys;  and  that, 
after  this  sort?  men's  consciences  be  either  opened  or 
shut."  Again,  in  his  defence  "of  the  Apology" 
against  the  papist,  Harding,  he  says,  (Works,  Vol. 
VIIL,  p.  504,)  "We  confound  not  these  keys.  We 
say  that  the  power  as  well  c.f  loosing  as  also  of  bind- 
ing, standeth  in  God's  word,  and  the  exercise,  or 
execution,  of  the  same  either  in  preaching  or  else 
in  sentence  of  correction  or  ecclesiastical  discipline." 


28 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF 


Now  here  we  find  the  power  of  the  keys  claimed  by 
Jewell  in  the  name  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land ;  but  no  mention  made  of  private  confession  and 
absolution  as  belonging  thereto,  but  a  denial  thereof. 
Will  the  Bishop  conclude  from  thence,  that  Jewell 
believed  that  priestly  absolution,  founded  on  private 
confession,  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin  ? 
Will  he  so  conclude?  then  let  Jewell  himself  answer. 
Vol.  VIII.,  p.  516.  "We  make  no  confusion  of  the 
keys.  Our  doctrine  is  plain ;  that  there  be  two  keys 
in  the  church  of  God ;  the  one  of  instruction,  the 
other  of  correction.  WThereof  the  one  worketh  in- 
wardly, the  other  outwardly ;  the  one  before  God, 
the  other  before  the  congregation,  and  yet  either  of 
these  standeth  wholly  in  the  word  of  God."  Now 
here  is  no  mistake,  can  be  none,  and  it  is  evident  that 
Jewell  knew  no  such  third  key,  which  worketh  in 
private  confession  and  priestly  absolution.  Neither 
did  Bishop  Ravenscroft  know  any  such,  else  he  would 
have  declared  it  to  his  people.  If  he  had  thought 
that  priestly  absolution  was  necessary  to  the  remission 
of  sins,  or  that  a  particular  confession  of  all  mortal 
sin  to  the  priest  was  either  necessary  or  advisable,  he 
would  have  proclaimed  it  to  his  congregation  in  ser- 
mons— to  his  convention  in  Charges;  on  all  he  would 
have  urged  it  with  the  truthful  simplicity  and  earnest 
diligence  which  marked  his  whole  ministerial  life.  It 
would  not  have  been  left  to  conjecture,  but  set  forth 
plainly,  for  he  was  not  a  man  who  dealt  in  ambiguous 
phraseology;  it  would  have  been  set  forth  always  and 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  29 

every  where,  for  he  taught  every  where,  and  always 
the  same  doctrine.  But  he  never  alluded  in  public 
service,  or  Charge,  or  in  private  instruction  to  his 
clergy  or  his  laity,  so  far  as  is  known,  to  any  suc'i 
doctrine.  Nay  more,  after  all  hope  of  recovery  was 
gone,  he  himself,  for  many  weeks,  awaited  the  coming 
of  death ;  he  wTas  visited  by  the  lay  members  of  his 
church,  male  and  female,  by  h'.s  clergy,  and  by  his 
friends  generally — he  spoke  to  them  (oh,  how  he 
spoke !)  on  the  awful  subjects  of  death  and  judgment, 
of  sin,  and  repentance,  and  forgiveness.  But  spoke 
not  at  all  of  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  having  a 
priest  "to  accept  our  repentance" — to  have  us  num- 
ber and  see  us  wreigh  our  sins — to  give  us  his  priestly 
absolution.  Then,  if  never  before,  he  would  have 
done  this,  had  he  believed  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Ives. 
Then,  if  never  before,  he  would  have  warned  his 
hearers  against  the  "presumption"  of  trusting  for  par- 
don of  mortal  sin  "to  a  repentance  not  accepted  by" 
a  priest,  and  a  confession  made  to  Almighty  God  alone. 
The  Bishop,  on  page  53,  has  this  passage:  "Bishop 
Ravenscroft,  in  discussing  the  relative  duties  of  pastor 
and  people,  enjoins  upon  the  latter,  "that  they  make 
their  pastor"  I  use  his  words,  "  acquainted  with 
their  spiritual  condition,  and  bitterly  laments  that 
in  our  system  there  is  such  a  want  of  inclination  and 
opportunity  for  this."  Bishop  Ives  gives  no  refe- 
rence to  the  place  in  which  the  quoted  words  are 
found,  but  I  find  in  a  charge  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft, 
(see  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  461,)  the  passage  from  which 


30  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

the  extract  is  taken.  It  is  in  these  words:  "A  third 
obligation,  growing  out  of  the  pastoral  relation,  is, 
that  the  members  of  the  church  attend  regularly  on 
his  ministrations;  that  they  make  him  acquainted  with 
their  spiritual  condition,  and  consult  freely  with  him 
thereupon ;  that  they  hear  with  reverence,  and  judge 
with  candour,  his  expositions  of  Christian  doctrine, 
and  his  admonitions  and  exhortations  to  holiness  of 
life;  and  that  they  practise  diligently  the  duties  and 
obligations  of  Christian  profession."  But  now,  does 
this  passage  show  that  the  writer  was  speaking  of,  or 
referred  to,  or  wished  to  encourage,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, a  particular  confession  of  all  mortal  sins 
"one  by  one,"  by  tale  and  weight,  to  a  priest — or 
that  he  desired  priestly  absolution  to  be  given  by  the 
pastor  upon  "being  made  acquainted  with  the  spiritual 
condition"  of  any  member  of  his  congregation? 

But  the  Bishop  invokes  the  aid  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Curtis,  whose  removal  to  South  Carolina  the  whole 
church  of  this  diocese  has  great  cause  to  lament.  Cer- 
tain passages  are  cited  by  the  Bishop  from  an  able 
sermon  of  Mr.  Curtis  upon  the  power  of  the  keys* 
But  do  they  afford  the  least  support  to  the  doctrine 
that  priestly  absolution,  upon  private  confession 
to  a  priest,  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  all 
mortal  sins — or  that  the  particular  confession  of  all 
such  sins  to  a  priest  is  either  necessary  or  advisable  ? 
Most  certainly  not.  Did  Mr.  Curtis  in  that  discourse 
intend  to  teach  any  such  doctrine?  Certainly  he  did 
not,  if  he   himself  may  be  allowed  to  determine  his 


BISHOP  IVES    PASTORAL  LETTER.  31 

own  meaning.  For  in  his  sermon,  (page  13,)  he 
quotes  from  Bingham,  with  commendation,  as  ex- 
pressing his  own  views,  the  following  passage— "The 
acts  of  the  ministry,  whereby  the  benefit  of  absolution 
is  ordinarily  dispensed  unto  men,  are  these  four: — 

1.  The  power  of  administering  the  two  sacraments 
of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  to  all  such  as  are 
qualified  to  receive  them ;  which  is,  therefore,  called 
sacramental  absolution. 

2.  The  power  of  declaring  or  publishing  the  terms 
or  conditions  upon  which  the  gospel  promises  pardon 
and  remission  of  sins ;  which  is  called  the  declaratory 
absolution  of  the  word  and  doctrine. 

3.  The  power  of  interceding  with  God  for  pardon 
of  sins  through  the  merits  of  Christ ;  which  is  the  abso- 
lution of  prayer,  or  precatory  absolution. 

4.  The  power  of  executing  church  discipline  and 
censures  upon  delinquents ;  which  consists  in  excluding 
flagitious  and  scandalous  sinners  from  the  communion 
of  the  church,  and  receiving  penitents  again  when 
they  have  given  just  evidence  of  a  sincere  repentance. 
This  is  called  judicial  absolution. 

In  these  four  acts,  regularly  exercised,  consists  the 
ministerial  power  of  retaining  or  remitting  sins." 

Now,  does  this  teach  or  imply  that  without  priestly 
absolution,  when  it  may  be  had,  mortal  sins  cannot  be 
remitted?  Does  this  teach  or  imply  that  all  mortal 
sins  must,  under  some  circumstances,  be  particularly 
confessed  to  a  priest  in  order  to  obtain  the  virtue  or 
effect  of  such  priestly  absolution? 


32  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

In  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  absolution, 
according  to  Mr.  Curtis,  is  obtained,  but  without  any 
such  private  confession  and  priestly  absolution.  So 
also  the  declaratory  and  precatory  absolutions  of  the 
daily  service  are  given  upon  a  general  confession  to 
God  only.  Under  which,  then,  of  these  four  acts,  in 
which,  according  to  Mr.  Curtis,  "  consists  the  minis- 
terial power  of  retaining  or  remitting  sins,"  will  the 
Bishop  include  his  private  priestly  absolution  upon  a 
private  confession  of  mortal  sins  ?  Will  he  include  it 
under  the  last  ?  That  refers  to  scandalous  sinners  ex- 
pelled from  the  church,  and  upon  just  evidence  of  re- 
pentance received  again.  The  Bishop,  on  the  con- 
trary, includes  in  his  proposition  all  baptized  persons, 
though  in  full  external  communion,  who  have  com- 
mitted mortal  sins.  Mr.  Curtis  refers  to  open  and  no- 
torious sins  which  have  made  the  sinner  "  scandalous," 
which  have  given  public  offence.  The  Bishop,  on 
the  contrary,  demands  confession  of  "  secret  faults," 
of  those  things  "done  in  secret,"  of  which  St.  Paul 
says  "it  is  a  shame  to  speak,"  thoughts  of  evil  things 
indulged  for  a  time,  and  then  expelled  by  a  returning 
sense  of  duty,  intents  of  sins  never  carried  into  action, 
which  died  before  they  reached  performance,  the  em- 
bryo conceptions  of  iniquity,  the  thousand  inward  ills 
which  sin  inflicts  upon  us,  and  wThich  in  our  better 
moments  we  abhor  and  renounce,  all  these  the  Bishop 
desires  should  be  drawn  out  from  the  dark  oblivion  to 
which  the  repentant  and  horror-stricken  sinner  had 
sought  to  consign  them— these  must  be  bid  to  live 


33 

again,  and  be  again  thought  over  by  the  shuddering 
mind — be  laid  before  a  priest — be  examined  with 
searching  eye — be  exactly  numbered,  and  curiously 
weighed  ! ! 

This  is  the  kind  of  confession  which  the  Bishop's 
doctrine  requires  to  be  introduced — a  confession  which 
Mr.  Curtis  would,  no  doubt,  shrink  from  making,  and 
promptly  decline  to  receive. 

How  admirably  calculated  is  this  re-enacting  of  se- 
cret faults,  this  putting  into  words  the  sins  of  thought, 
to  restore  purity  to  the  penitent,  and  preserve  it  in 
the  confessor !  Truly,  to  such  an  end  it  is  not  more 
conducive,  than  are,  to  the  promotion  of  enlightened 
and  devout  affections,  some  of  the  improvements  in 
the  form  and  magnificence  of  church  buildings,  and  in 
the  postures  at  public  worship  which  the  Bishop  has 
seen,  or  desires  to  see  accomplished ;  (p.  55,  58,)  for 
example,  the  direction  of  kneeling,  on  which  he  lays 
great  stress.  At  page  55,  speaking  of  the  time  "  when 
custom  was  in  keeping  with  doctrine,"  he  says,  "  Then 
it  was  manifest  that  the  minister  offered  prayer  to 
God,  and  not  to  the  people,  by  kneeling  towards  the 
place  where  the  incarnate  God  had  taken  up  His  spe- 
cial abode." 

Now  there  is  no  man  in  this  diocese,  if  there  be  any 
such  in  the  world,  who  ever  supposed  for  a  moment 
that  a  prayer  to  Almighty  God  was  addressed  to  the 
congregation,  or  that  the  minister,  kneel  in  what  di- 
rection he  might,  was  asking  pardon  and  blessing  for 
the  people  from  the  people.     But  if  any  be  so  stupid 


34  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

as  to  make  this  mistake,  no  direction  of  the  minister's 
kneeling  will  help  him,  since  none  of  us,  until  we  saw 
the  Pastoral,  had  heard  that  there  was  any  place  in 
our  churches  "in  which  the  incarnate  God  had  taken 
up  his  special  abode,"  and  none  of  us  know  now  where 
that  place  is. 

The  Bishop  seems  to  admit  that,  in  appearance,  the 
church  is  against  him,  because  she  requires  repentance 
only  from  those  who  come  to  the  Communion.  But 
he  says,  (31,)  "The  error  here  lies,  I  think,  in  under- 
standing repentance  in  a  restricted  popular  sense,  and 
not  in  the  sense  of  the  church,"  and  he  endeavours  to 
show  that  under  the  term  "  repentance,"  the  church 
includes  contrition,  confession,  and  satisfaction. 

Now,  if  by  confession  here  the  Bishop  means  con- 
fession unto  Almighty  God,  it  will  not  serve  his  pur- 
pose; for  his  doctrine  requires  a  particular  confession 
of  mortal  sins  unto  a  priest  in  all  cases,  or  at  least  in 
some  cases,  and  this  the  church  did  not  mean,  as  may 
be  conclusively  shown. 

In  baptism,  the  Bishop  admits  we  receive  full  re- 
mission of  all  sins;  for  baptism,  the  church  in  her  cate- 
chism demands  repentance,  but  the  Bishop  himself 
admits  that  repentance,  as  a  qualification  for  baptism, 
does  not  include  a  particular  confession  to  a  priest: 
but  that  we  may,  and  do  receive  full  remission  in  that 
sacrament  without  such  confession.  But  the,  church 
requires  "repentance"  in  those  w7ho  are  baptized, 
and  the  Bishop  admits  that  confession  to  a  priest  is 
not  required  of  them;  and,  therefore,  the  Bishop  him- 


35 

self  being  judge,  the  church  does  not  include,  under 
the  term  repentance,  confession  to  a  priest.  Now, 
surely,  it  is  just  reasoning  to  say,  that  the  church 
having  required,  in  her  Catechism,  repentance  from  those 
who  came  to  be  baptized,  and  afterwards,  in  the  same 
Catechism,  having  required  repentance  from  those  who 
came  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  must  be  understood  to  re- 
quire, in  the  second  instance,  just  what  she  required 
in  the  first,  unless  the  church,  in  the  Catechism  or  else- 
where, has  otherwise  determined.  For  it  is  a  sound 
rule  of  interpretation  that,  in  any  exact  treatise,  the 
same  term  twice  occurring,  without  any  note  or  mark 
of  difference,  must  be  understood,  in  both  places,  in 
the  same  sense. 

But  the  church  is  the  best  expositor  of  her  own 
meaning,  and  she  has  herself  conclusively  determined 
it  to  be  different  from  that  which  the  Bishop  would 
attribute  to  her. 

In  the  exhortation  before  quoted  she  shows,  in  di- 
recting her  children  how  they  shall  prepare  for  the 
Communion,  what  she  meant  by  her  doctrinal  teaching 
in  the  Catechism,  as  to  the  qualifications  for  that  sa- 
crament. She  directs  us,  first,  to  examine  our  lives 
and  conversations  by  the  rule  of  God's  commandments, 
and  whereinsoever  we  shall  perceive  ourselves  to  have 
offended,  either  by  will,  word  or  deed,  there  to  bewail 
our  own  sinfulness,  and  to  confess  ourselves  to  Al- 
mighty God,  with  full  purpose  of  amendment  of  life; 
she  then  directs  restitution  and  satisfaction,  &c,  to 
our  neighbours  whom  we  may  have  wronged,  and  for- 


36  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

giveness  of  those  who  may  have  wronged  us.  He, 
then,  according  to  the  church,  who  has  discovered  his 
offences  against  God's  commandments,  and  humbled 
himself,  and  confessed  them  before  God  with  a  full 
purpose  of  amendment,  has  truly  repented  within  the 
church's  meaning;  unless  we  suppose,  which  cannot 
be,  that  in  directing  how  we  are  to  prepare  for  a 
worthy  participation  in  the  Communion,  she  has  failed 
to  require  repentance  at  all.  Hence,  when  she  in  the 
exhortation  at  the  Communion  says,  "ye  who  truly 
repent,"  all  must  understand  her  to  mean  "in  the 
manner  mentioned  in  the  exhortation  read  to  you, 
when  the  minister  gave  notice  of  this  Communion." 

The  Bishop  seems  to  think  himself  fortified  in  his 
opinions,  because  "  the  church  admits  no  one  to  the 
blessed  sacrament  without  confession  and  absolution." 
The  church,  indeed,  exhorts  to  private  ^//-examina- 
tion, and  particular  confession  to  God,  and  appoints  a 
general  confession  to  be  said  openly  by  priest  and 
people,  and  a  public  declaration  of  absolution  to  the 
penitent  and  believing.  But  surely  this  gives  no  coun- 
tenance to  the  opinion,  that  private  particular  con- 
fession to  a  priest,  an  acceptance  of  the  penitent's  re- 
pentance and  private  absolution,  involving  the  exer- 
cise of  priestly  judgment,  are  necessary,  under  any 
circumstances,  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin. 

Now,  is  it  not  evident  that  the  Bishop's  doctrine  is 
not  only  without  countenance,  from  our  branch  of  the 
church,  but  is  in  opposition  to  all  which  the  church 
has  taught  ?     lie  declares  a  necessity  for  priestly  ab- 


37 

solution  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin,  where  it  might 
be  had;  she  teaches  no  such  doctrine — she  contradicts 
that  doctrine ;  for  she  directs  her  clergy  to  visit  the 
sick,  and  to  join  with  them  in  prayer  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  their  sins,  without  hearing  any  confession,  or 
giving  any  absolution ;  which  prayer  is  impious  or  vain, 
if  the  Bishop's  doctrine  be  held  by  the  church,  since 
this  is  plainly  a  case  in  which  priestly  absolution  may 
be  had. 

He  teaches  that  private  confession  ought,  in  all 
cases,  to  be  made  to  a  priest,  of  all  mortal  sins,  one 
by  one,  that  the  sinner's  repentance  may  be  judged  of 
and  accepted  by  the  priest,  and  the  necessary  absolu- 
tion be  had;  or  if  not  in  all  cases,  yet  in  some. 

The  church  holds  no  such  doctrine.  If  she  does, 
why  was  it  not  before  now  found  out  by  some,  at  least, 
of  our  clergy?  Did  Hobart,  the  learned,  the  pious, 
high  church  Bishop,  know  it  as  her  doctrine?  Oh, 
no;  for  he  says,  "the  churchman  justly  deems  auricu- 
lar confession  and  private  absolution  an  encroachment 
on  the  rights  of  conscience,  an  invasion  of  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Searcher  of  hearts,  and,  with  some  ex- 
ceptions, hostile  to  domestic  and  social  happiness,  and 
licentious  and  corrupting  in  its  tendency ." — 
Charge  to  Clergy,  1819. 

Did  the  venerable  Bishop  White,  coeval  with  the 
first  existence  of  "our  branch  of  the  church,"  and 
who  sunk  to  rest  after  spending  half  a  century  in  the 
episcopal  office?  Did  he  recognise  the  doctrine  of 
Bishop  Ives  as  the  doctrine  of  "our  branch  of  the 
4 


38  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

church?" — far,  very  far,  from  it.  For,  speaking  of 
that  very  form  of  absolution  which  yet  remains  in  the 
English  office,  and  which  has  been  shut  out  of  ours — that 
very  form  which  Bishop  Ives  approves,  and  I  suppose 
uses,  and  which  he  quotes  as  conclusive  proof  of  the 
sense  of  our  church — speaking  of  this  very  form,  he 
says,  "  The  other  form  used  in  the  office  for  '  the  visi- 
tation of  the  sick,'  and  properly  discharged  from  ours, 
is  in  a  tone  not  warranted  by  ancient  usage." 

Did  Bishop  Ives  himself  know  his  own  doctrine  as 
the  doctrine  of  the  church,  until  he  had  been  more  than 
ten  years  Bishop  of  the  diocese?  Did  he  ever  preach 
it?  Did  he  ever  embody  it  in  a  Charge?  Did  he  ever 
plainly  declare,  or  even  hint  it,  for  ten  years  after  he 
took  charge  of  the  diocese  ?  Now,  if  his  were  a  doc- 
trine of  the  church,  if  private  particular  confession  of 
mortal  sins  were  necessary  or  profitable — if  priestly 
absolution  were  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins — if 
private  absolution  were  deemed  necessary  or  proper, 
where  was  this  doctrine  hid,  that  White  and  Hobart 
passed  their  whole  lives  without  rinding  it? — that 
Bishop  Ives  for  more  than  ten  years  of  his  episcopate 
found  it  not?  Many  volumes  have  been  published  of 
Sermons,  Charges,  and  Pastorals,  by  our  Bishops,  and 
sermons  by  eminent  clergymen  of  our  church,  contain- 
ing discussions  upon  repentance,  and  forgiveness,  and 
many  other  topics ;  and  yet  this  doctrine,  so  impor- 
tant, if  true,  and  so  easily  to  be  known,  if  taught  by 
the  church,  has  never,  by  design  or  accident,  directly 
or  incidentally,  been  declared. 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  39 

How  happened  it  that  this  doctrine  should  he  re- 
served for  its  formal  public  promulgation  to  the  Pas- 
torals and  Sermons  of  Bishop  Ives  in  the  years  1848 
and  1849,  if  it  were  all  along  a  doctrine  of  the  church  ? 
Were  all  the  Bishops  and  clergy  of  "our  branch  of 
the  church,"  (himself  included,)  heretofore  ignorant 
and  knew  it  not,  or  unfaithful  and  declared  it  not? 
How  is  it,  that  a  doctrine  of  the  church  of  such  high 
importance  should  have  been  so  lost  in  forgetfulness, 
that  now  its  announcement  should  fall  amongst  us 
with  the  shock  of  a  meteoric  mass? — should  startle  us 
like  the  sudden  appearance  of  an  unknown  comet, 
which  had  escaped  the  observation  of  centuries,  and 
the  foresight  of  the  astronomer? — should  make  us  to 
shudder  with  fearful  recollections  of  her  that  sitteth 
on  the  seven  hills  in  her  day  of  power? 

Has  Bishop  Ives  been  favoured  with  a  special  reve- 
lation, a  vision  of  angels  to  open  to  him  the  mind  of 
the  church?  Truly  this  doctrine,  announced  by  a  pro- 
testant  bishop  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
seems  like  a  mid-summer  night's  dream — like  the 
madness  of  deep  musing  over  medieval  theology,  and 
scholastic  refinement,  and  superstition.  Has  it  been 
reserved  to  Bishop  Ives  to  discover  the  great  secret  of 
Protestant  Episcopal  theology,  which  had  e>caj  ed  the 
researches  of  all  other  of  her  bishops  and  clergy?  Has 
he  seen  a  star  in  the  East,  at  Oxford  or  at  Rome,  and 
has  he  gone  there  to  worship*?  Is  he  bent  on  reform- 
ing the  Reformation?  Would  he  lead  us  to  bow  down 
in  adoration  at  that  See  which,  according  to  the  mar- 


40  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

tyr  Ridley,  "is  the  seat  of  Satan,  and  the  bishop  of 
the  same,  who  maintaineth  the  abominations  thereof, 
is  Antichrist  himself  indeed?" 

II.  But  secondly,  the  Bishop's  doctrine  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  church  of  England.  The 
proof  of  this  has  been  necessarily,  in  some  measure, 
anticipated,  because  the  church  of  England,  and  "our 
branch  of  the  church,"  do,  in  most  things,  agree — in 
all  which  are  truly  essential  to  the  integrity  of  the 
faith  and  the  necessary  discipline  of  the  church — and 
hence,  in  vindicating  the  church  of  the  United  States, 
we  have,  more  or  less,  necessarily  vindicated  the 
church  of  England  from  the  suspicion  of  holding  the 
Bishop's  doctrine.  To  complete  the  proof  of  our  pre- 
sent position  will,  therefore,  be  the  less  difficult,  from 
what  has  been  already  said. 

The  two  churches  agree  in  the  following  particu- 
lars. Neither  any  where  enjoins  or  recommends  au- 
ricular confession,  that  is,  the  confession  to  a  priest  of 
all  mortal  sins,  one  by  one,  numbering  and  weighing 
them — neither  declares  the  necessity,  or  recommends 
the  propriety  of  asking  a  priest  to  judge  of  and  ac- 
cept our  repentance  for  such  sins,  but  both  agree  in 
exhorting  those  who  cannot  by  their  own  private  self- 
examination  quiet  their  consciences,  to  open  their  grief 
to  a  minister  of  the  church.  The  English  church  does 
not,  as  Bishop  Ives  supposes,  (see  page  49  of  his  Pas- 
toral,) direct  "that  all  sick  persons  visited  are  to  be 
moved  to  a  special  confession  of  their  sins,"  for  her 
words  in  the  rubric,  in  the  Visitation  Office,  are  these: 


41 

"  Then  shall  the  sick  person  be  moved  to  make  a  spe- 
cial confession  of  his  sins  if  he  feel  his  conscience 
troubled  with  any  iveighty  matter"  Therefore 
all  sick  persons  are  not  to  be  moved  to  make  a  special 
confession  of  their  sins,  but  only  such  as  feel  their  con- 
sciences troubled  with  any  weighty  matter,  and, 
therefore,  also  the  sins  to  be  confessed  are  only  those 
included  in  the  weighty  matter  which  troubles  the 
conscience;  which  amounts  only  to  what  is  directed  in 
the  Communion  Office, for  those  whose  consciences  can- 
not, by  their  own  efforts,  be  quieted.  The  object  in 
both  cases  is  the  same,  to  produce  quiet  of  conscience ; 
and  this  is  to  be  done  in  both  by  the  same  means,  to 
wit,  opening  the  grief,  or  the  particular  sins  which 
produce  the  disquiet.  Hence,  it  is  evident  that  in  this 
respect  both  churches  agree;  that  nothing  need  be 
confessed — that  the  penitent  is  to  be  moved  to  confess 
nothing  but  that  which  produces  the  difficulty,  which 
disquiets  or  troubles  the  conscience;  this  may  be, 
and  probably  most  usually  is,  though  by  no  means 
necessarily,  some  mortal  sin  or  sins.  But  this  sin,  if 
mortal,  is  not  to  be  confessed  because  it  is  mortal, 
but  because  of  its  remaining  a  burden  upon  the  mind, 
and  disabling  the  sinner  from  quieting  his  own  con- 
science in  respect  thereto,  through  the  general  direc- 
tions of  the  church  or  the  minister.  Now,  if  either  of 
the  churches  had  intended  a  confession  in  all  cases, 
she  would  have  said  so — if  of  all  mortal  sins,  in  any 
case,  she  would  have  said  so,  and  hence,  as  neither 
has  said  it,  neither  meant  it. 
4* 


42  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

That  this  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  English 
church  is  correct,  may  be  otherwise  proved.  What 
thought  Bishop  Latimer,  "old  Hugh  Latimer,"  as  he 
called  himself,  that  noble  martyr  of  the  English  church? 
Hear  him  in  his  sermon  on  the  healing  of  the  leper — 
"Here  our  papists  make  ado  with  their  auricular  con- 
fession, trying  to  prove  the  same  by  this  place.  For 
they  say  Christ  sent  this  man  unto  the  priest  to  fetch 
there  his  absolution ;  and,  therefore,  we  must  go  also 
unto  the  priest,  and,  after  confession,  receive  of  him 
absolution  of  all  our  sins.  But  yet  we  must  take 
heed,  say  they,  that  we  forget  nothing;  for  all  those 
sins  which  are  forgotten,  may  not  be  forgiven. 
And  so  they  bind  the  consciences  of  men,  persuading 
them  that  when  their  sins  were  all  numbered  and 
confessed,  it  was  well.  And  hereby  they  took  clean 
away  the  passion  of  Christ.  For  they  made  this 
numbering  of  sins  to  be  a  merit;  and  so  they  came  at 
all  the  secrets  that  were  in  men's  hearts;  so  that  no 
emperor  or  king  could  say  or  do  or  think  any  thing  in 
his  heart  but  they  knew  it ;  and  so  applied  all  the 
purposes  and  intents  of  princes  to  their  own  advantage ; 
and  this  was  the  fruit  of  their  auricular  confes- 
sion. But  to  speak  of  right  and  true  confession,  T 
would  to  God  it  were  kept  in  England,  for  it  is  a  good 
thing.  And  those  who  find  themselves  grieved  in 
conscience  might  go  to  a  learned  man  and  there  ob- 
tain of  him  comfort  from  the  word  of  God,  and  so 
come  to  a  quiet  conscience;  which  is  better  and  more 
to  be  regarded  than  all  the  riches  of  the  world.    And 


surely  it  grieves  me  that  such  confessions  are  not  kept 
in  England." 

Hear  him  again  in  his  sixth  sermon  on  the  Lord's 
prayer:  "Oh!  this  is  a  godly  prayer  which  we  ought 
at  all  times  to  say,  for  we  sin  daily ;  therefore  we  have 
need  to  say  daily,  'Forgive  us  our  trespasses;'  and  as 
David  saith,  'Lord,  enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy 
servant;'  for  we  are  not  able  to  abide  his  judgment. 
If  it  were  not  for  this  pardon,  which  we  have  in  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  we  should  all  perish  eternally. 
For  when  this  word  'forgive,'  was  spoken  with  a  good 
fciith  and  with  a.  penitent  heart,  there  never  wets  a 
man  but  he  washeard.  If  Judas,  that  traitor,had  said 
it  with  a  good  faith,  it  should  have  saved  him ;  but  he 
forgot  that  point ;  he  was  taught  it  indeed,  our  Saviour 
himself  taught  him  to  pray  so,  but  he  forgot  it  again. 
Peter  remembered  that  point:  he  cried,  'Lord,  forgive 
me,'  and  so  he  obtained  his  pardon,  and  so  shall  we 
do :  for  we  are  ever  in  that  case  that  we  have  need  to 
say,  'Lord,  forgive  us;'  for  we  ever  do  amiss." 

Hear  Jewell  speaking  in  his  "Apology,"  the  voice 
of  the  Anglican  church.  "Christ's  disciples  did  re- 
ceive their  authority,  not  that  they  should  hear  the 
private  confessions  of  the  people,  and  listen  to  their 
whisperings"  &c. 

Hear  him  again  in  his  "  Defence."  "  Private  con- 
fession to  be  made  unto  the  minister,  is  neither  com- 
manded by  Christ  nor  necessary  to  salvation."  And, 
therefore,  Chrysostom  saith,  "  I  will  thee  not  to  be- 
wray thyself  openly,  nor  to  accuse  thyself  before  others; 


44  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

but  I  counsel  thee  to  obey  the  prophet,  saying,  'Open 
thy  way  unto  the  Lord.7  n 

Hear  also  the  Church  of  England  and  of  the  United 
States  speaking  in  the  second  book  of  Homilies,  which 
by  the  thirty-fifth  Article  of  Religion  is  declared  "  to 
contain  a  godly  and  true  doctrine,  and  necessary  for 
these  times."  In  the  "  Second  part  of  the  sermon  of 
Repentance,"  it  is  said:  "  These  are  also  the  words  of 
John  the  Evangelist,  '  If  we  confess  our  sins,  God  is 
faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to 
make  us  clean  from  all  our  wickedness ;'  which  ought 
to  be  understood  of  the  confession  that  is  made  unto 
God.  For  without  this  confession,  sin  is  not  forgiven. 
This  is  then  the  chiefest  and  most  principal  confession 
that  in  the  scriptures  and  word  of  God  we  are  bidden 
to  make,  and  without  the  which  we  shall  never  obtain 
pardon  and  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  Indeed,  besides 
this  there  is  another  kind  of  confession,  which  is  need- 
ful and  necessary,  and  of  the  same  doth  St.  James  speak 
after  this  manner,  saying,  '  Acknowledge  your  faults 
one  to  another,  and  pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may 
be  saved;'  as  if  he  should  say,  open  that  which 
grieveth  yon,  that  a  remedy  may  be  found;  and  this 
is  commanded  both  for  him  that  complaineth  and  for 
him  that  heareth,  that  the  one  should  show  his  grief 
to  the  other.  The  true  meaning  of  it  is,  that  the 
faithful  ought  to  acknowledge  their  offences,  whereby 
some  hatred,  rancour,  grudge,  or  malice,  having  risen 
or  grown  among  them  one  to  another,  that  a  brotherly 
reconciliation  may  be  had,  without  the  which,  nothing 
that  we  can  do  can  be  acceptable  unto  God." 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  45 

"  It  may  also  be  thus  taken,  that  we  ought  to  con- 
fess our  iveakness  and  infirmities  one  to  another, 
to  the  end  that,  knowing  each  other's  frailness,  we 
may  the  more  earnestly  pray  together  unto  Almighty 
God,  our  Heavenly  Father,  that  he  will  vouchsafe  to 
pardon  us  our  infirmities,  for  his  Son  Jesus  Christ's 
sake,  and  not  to  impute  them  unto  us  when  he  shall 
render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works;  and 
whereas  the  adversaries  go  about  to  arrest  this  plan, 
for  to  maintain  their  auricular  confession  withal,  they 
are  greatly  deceived  themselves,  and  do  shamefully 
deceive  others :  for  if  this  text  ought  to  be  understood 
of  auricular  confession,  then  the  priests  are  as  much 
bound  to  confess  themselves  unto  the  lay  people,  as 
the  lay  people  are  bound  to  confess  themselves  to 
them;  and  if  to  pray  is  to  absolve,  then  the  laity  by 
this  plan  hath  as  great  authority  to  absolve  the  priests, 
as  the  priests  have  to  absolve  the  laity."  The  un- 
derstanding of  it  then  is  as  in  these  words:  "Confess 
your  sins  one  to  another  " — a  persuasion  to  humility, 
whereby  he  willeth  us  to  confess  ourselves  generally 
unto  our  neighbours,  that  we  are  sinners,  according 
to  this  saying:  "  If  we  say  we  have  no  sin,  we  deceive 
ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us."  And  where  that 
they  do  allege  this  saying  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
unto  the  leper,  to  prove  auricular  confession  to  stand 
on  God's  word,  "  Go  thy  way,  and  show  thyself  unto 
the  priests,"  do  they  not  see  that  the  leper  was  cleansed 
from  his  leprosy  before  he  was  by  Christ  sent  unto 
the  priest  for  to  show  himself  unto  him?     By  the  same 


46  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

reason  we  must  be  cleansed  from  our  spiritual  leprosy, 
I  mean  our  sins  must  be  forgiven  us,  before  that  we 
come  to  confession.  What  need  we  then  to  tell  forth, 
our  sins  into  the  ear  of  the  priest,  sith  they  be  al- 
ready taken  aivay  ?  Therefore,  holy  Ambrose,  in 
his  second  sermon  upon  the  hundred  and  nineteenth 
Psalm,  doth  say  full  well,  "Go  show  thyself  unto  the 
priest."  Who  is  the  true  priest,  but  he  which  is 
the  "  priest  for  ever,  after  the  order  of  Melchise- 
deck?"  Whereby  this  holy  father  doth  under- 
stand, that,  both  the  priesthood  and  the  law  being 
changed,  we  ought  to  acknowledge  none  other  priest 
for  deliverance  from  our  sins,  but  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  being  Sovereign  Bishop,  doth, 
with  the  sacrifice  of  his  body  and  blood,  offered 
once  for  ever  upon  the  altar  of  the  cross,  most  effec- 
tually cleanse  the  spiritual  leprosy,  and  wash  away 
the  sins  of  all  those  that  with  true  confession  of  the 
same  do  flee  unto  him.  It  is  most  evident  and  plain 
that  this  auricular  confession  hath  not  his  warrant  of 
God's  word,  else  it  had  not  been  lawful  for  Nectarius, 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  upon  a  just  occasion,  to  have 
put  it  down.  For  when  any  thing  ordained  of  God  is 
by  the  lewdness  of  men  abused,  the  abuse  ought  to  be 
taken  away,  and  the  thing  itself  suffered  to  remain. 
Moreover,  these  are  St.  iVugustine's  words:  "  What 
have  I  to  do  with  men,  that  they  should  hear  my  con- 
fession, as  though  they  were  able  to  heal  my  diseases? 
A  curious  sort  of  men  to  know  another  man's  life,  and 
slothful  to  correct  and   amend  their  own.     Why  do 


47 

they  seek  to  hear  of  me  what  /  am,  which  will  not 
hear  of  thee  what  they  are?  and  how  can  they  tell, 
when  they  hear  by  me  of  myself,  whether  I  tell  the 
truth  or  not ;  sith  no  mortal  man  knoweth  what  is  in 
man,  but  the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him?"  Augus- 
tine would  not  have  written  thus,  if  auricular  con- 
fession had  been  used  in  his  time.  Being,  there- 
fore, not  led  with  the  conscience  thereof,  let  us  with 
fear  and  trembling,  and  with  a  true  contrite  heart,  use 
that  kind  of  confession  that  God  doth  command 
in  his  ivord;  and  then,  doubtless,  as  he  is  faithful 
and  righteous,  he  will  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  make 
us  clean  from  all  wickedness.  I  do  not  say,  but  that, 
if  any  do  find  themselves  troubled  in  conscience,  they 
may  repair  to  their  learned  curate  or  pastor,  or  to 
some  other  godly  learned  man,  and  show  the  trou- 
ble and  doubt  of  their  conscience  to  them,  that  they 
may  receive  at  their  hand  the  comfortable  salve  of 
God's  word;  but  it  is  against  the  true  Christian  liberty 
that  any  man  should  be  bound  to  the  numbering  of 
his  si?is,  as  it  hath  been  used  heretofore  in  the  time  of 
blindness  and  ignorance." 

Let  us  hear  Hooker,  " judicious"  Hooker,  from 
whom  the  Bishop  makes  large  quotations,  but  does  not 
quote  what  Hooker  says  of  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  the  Church  of  England.  Is  he  a  supporter  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  priestly  absolution  to 
the  remission  of  sin,  and  of  confession  to  a  priest  as 
the  condition  on  which  depends  the  effect  of  such  abso- 
lution, or  of  the  necessity  or  propriety  of  confessing  all 


48  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

mortal  sins  to  the  priest?  By  no  means,  if  we  will 
allow  Hooker  to  know  his  own  meaning.  In  the  6th 
book  of  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  (page  24,  Pref.  Ed. 
1793,)  after  stating  the  popish  doctrine,  that  there  is 
no  promise  of  forgiveness  made  in  the  scripture  upon 
confession  to  God  without  the  priest,  and  that  every 
promise  is  upon  that  condition,  although  not  expressed, 
he  says:  "Is  it  not  strange  that  the  scripture,  speak- 
ing so  much  of  repentance  and  of  the  several  duties 
which  appertain  thereunto,  should  ever  mean,  and  no 
ivhere  mention,  that  one  condition,  without  which  all 
the  rest  is  of  none  effect?  or  will  they  say,  because  our 
Saviour  hath  said  to  his  ministers,  '  Whose  sins  ye  re- 
tain,' &c,  and  because  they  can  remit  no  more  than 
what  the  offenders  have  confessed,  that,  therefore,  by 
the  virtue  of  his  promise,  it  standeth  with  the  right- 
eousness of  God  to  take  awTay  no  man's  sins  until  by 
auricular  confession  they  be  opened  unto  the  priest? 
They  are  men  that  would  seem  to  honour  antiquity, 
and  none  more  disposed  to  depend  upon  the  reverend 
judgment  thereof.  I  dare  boldly  affirm,  that  for  many 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  the  fathers  held  no  such 
opinion — they  did  not  gather  by  our  Saviour's  word, 
any  such  necessity  of  seeking  the  pries Vs  absolu- 
tion from  sin  by  secret  and  (as  they  now  term  it,) 
sacramental  confession.  Public  confession  they 
thought  necessary  by  toay  of  discipline,  not  private 
confession,  as  in  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  neces- 
sary." 

Then  after  having  considered  at  large  the  state  of 
this  matter  in  primitive  times,  the  popish  doctrines  and 


49 

those  of  the  Bohemians,  Lutherans,  &c,  respecting  it, 
he  proceeds  (page  47,)  to  give  the  opinions,  as  he  un- 
derstands them,  of  the  English  Church. 

"  It  standeth  with  us  in  the  Church  of  England,  as 
touching  public  confession  thus:  first,  seeing  day  by  day 
we,  in  our  church,  begin  our  public  prayers  to  Almighty 
God  with  public  acknowledgment  of  our  sins,  in  which 
confession,  every  man  prostrate  as  it  were  before  his 
glorious  majesty,  crieth  against  himself,  and  the  minis- 
ter with  one  sentence  pronounceth  universally  all  clear 
whose  acknowledgment  so  made  hath  proceeded  from 
a  true  penitent  mind ;  what  reason  is  there  every  man 
should  not,  under  the  general  terms  of  confession,  re- 
present to  himself  his  own  particulars  whatsoever,  and 
adjoining  thereunto  that  affection  which  a  contrite  spi- 
rit worketh,  embrace,  to  as  full  effect,  the  words  of 
divine  grace,  as  if  the  same  were  severally  and  particu- 
larly uttered  with  addition  of  prayers,  imposition  of 
hands,  or  all  the  ceremonies  and  solemnities  that  might 
be  used  for  the  strengthening  of  men's  affiance  in  God's 
peculiar  mercy  towards  them?  Such  complements 
[ceremonies,]  are  helps  to  support  our  weakness,  and 
not  causes  that  serve  to  procure  or  produce  his  gifts, 
as  David  speaketh.  The  difference  of  general  and 
particular  forms  of  confession  and  absolution  is  not 
so  material  that  any  man's  safety  or  ghostly  good 
should  depend  upon  it." 

"And  tor  private  confession  and  absolution  it  stand- 
eth thus  with  its:  The  minister's  power  to  absolve 
is  publicly  taught  and  professed ;  the  church  not  denied 
5 


50  AN  EXAMINATION  OP 

to  have  authority  either  of  abridging  or  enlarging 
the  use  and  exercise  of  that  power ;  upon  the  people 
no  such  necessity  imposed  of  opening  their  transgres- 
sions unto  men,  as  if  remission  of  sins  otherwise  were 
impossible ;  neither  any  such  opinion  had  of  the  thing 
itself,  as  though  it  were  either  unlawful  or  unprofitable, 
save  only  for  those  inconveniences  which  the  world 
hath  by  experience  observed  in  it  heretofore.  And 
in  regard  thereof,  the  Church  of  England  hath 
hitherto  thought  it  the  safer  way  to  refer  men's  hid- 
den crimes  unto  God  and  themselves  only ;  howbeit, 
not  without  special  caution  for  the  admonition  of  such 
as  come  to  the  Holy  Sacrament,  and  for  the  comfort  of 
such  as  are  ready  to  depart  the  world."  And  after 
discussing  the  exhortation  in  the  Communion  Office,  and 
the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  he  concludes  the  whole  mat- 
ter as  follows :  "  In  some,  when  the  offence  doth  stand 
only  between  God  and  man's  conscience,  the  coun- 
sel is  good  which  St.  Chrysostom  giveth,  '  I  wTish  thee 
not  to  bewray  thyself  publicly,  nor  to  accuse  thyself 
before  others.  I  wish  thee  to  obey  the  Prophet,  who 
saith,  'Disclose  thy  way  unto  the  Lord,  confess  thy 
sins  before  him;  tell  thy  sins  to  him,  that  he  may 
blot  them  out.'  If  thou  be  abashed  to  tell  unto  any 
other  wherein  thou  hast  offended,  rehearse  them  every 
day  between  thee  and  thy  soul.  I  wTish  thee  not 
to  confess  them  to  thy  fellow-servant,  who  may  up- 
braid thee  with  them  ;  tell  them  to  God,  who  will 
cure  them;  there  is  no  need  for  thee,  in  the  presence 
of  witnesses,  to  acknowledge  them ;  let  God  alone  see 


PASTORAL  LETTER. 


51 


thee  at  thy  confession.  I  pray  and  beseech  you  that 
you  would,  more  often  than  you  do,  confess  to  God 
eternal,  and  reckoning  up  your  trespasses,  desire  his 
pardon.  I  carry  you  not  into  a  theatre  or  open  court 
of  many  of  your  fellow-servants,  I  seek  not  to  detect 
vour  crimes  before  men ;  disclose  your  conscience  be- 
fore God,  unfold  yourselves  to  him;  lay  forth  your 
wounds  before  him,  the  best  physician  that  is,  and  de- 
sire of  him  salve  for  them.  If  hereupon  it  follow,  as 
it  did  with  David,  <I  thought  I  will  confess  against 
myself  my  wickedness  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  and  thou 
forgavest  me  the  plague  of  my  sin,'  we  have  our 
desire,  and  there  remaineth  only  thankfulness,  accom- 
panied with  perpetuity  of  care  to  avoid  that,  which 
being  not  avoided,  we  know  we  cannot  remedy  with- 
out new  perplexity  and  grief.  Contrariwise,  if  peace 
with  God  do  not  follow  the  pains  we  have  taken  in 
seeking  after  it,  if  we  continue  disquieted  and  not 
delivered  from  anguish,  mist?*usting  whether  that 
we  do  be  sufficient ;  it  argueth,  that  our  sore  doth 
exceed  the  power  of  our  own  skill,  and  that  the  wis- 
dom of  the  pastor  must  bind  up  those  parts,  which, 
being  bruised,  are  not  able  to  be  re-cured  of  them- 
selves." Again,  did  Hooker  hold  with  Bishop  Ives, 
that  "priestly  absolution  from  all  deadly  sin,  after 
baptism,  is  necessary,"  that  the  priests  when  they 
pronounce  these  words,  (I  absolve  thee,  &c.,)  over 
the  truly  penitent,  do  convey  really  and  directly 
God's  pardon  to  their  consciences  for  all  their  sins 
and  offences  committed  against  him? — that  it  is  "pre- 


-")2  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

sumption  to  trust  for  pardon  to  a  repentance  not  ac- 
cepted by  the  representatives  of  Christ;"  or  that  they 
alone  have  "the  power  to  remit  or  retain  sins,"  as 
between  the  sinner  and  God?     Surely  not.     For  he 
says,  (page  93,)  "  Whereas,  therefore,  with  us,  the 
remission  of  sin  is  ascribed  unto  God,  as  a  thing  which 
proceedeth  from  him  only,  and  presently  folio weth 
upon  the  virtue  of  true  repentance  appearing  in  man ; 
that  which    toe  attribute  to  the    virtue,   they   (the 
papists)  do  not  only  impute  to  the  sacrament  of  re- 
pentance; but,  having  made  repentance  a  sacrament, 
and  thinking  of  sacraments  as  they  do,  they  are  en- 
forced  to  make  the  ministry  of  the  priests  and  their 
absolution  a  cause  of  that  which  the  sole  omnipotency 
of  God  worketh.     And  yet,  for  my  own  part,  I  am 
not  able  well  to  conceive  how  their  doctrine,  that  ab- 
solution is  really  a  cause  out  of  which  our  deliverance 
from  sin  doth  ensue,  can  cleave  with  the  Council  of 
Trent,  denning,  '  that    contrition   perfected  with 
charity,  doth  at  all  times  itself  reconcile  offenders 
to  God,  before  they  come  to  receive  actually  the 
sacrament  of  penance, /'     How  can  it  stand  with 
those  discourses  of  the  learned  Rabbies,  which  grant 
that  whosoever  turneth  unto  God  with  his  whole 
heart,  hath  immediately   his  sins  taken  away; 
that  if  a  man  be  truly  converted,  his  pardon  can 
neither  be  denied  nor  delayed?     It  doth  not  stay 
for  the  priest's  absolution,  but  presently  followeth: 
surely  if  every  contrite  sinner,  in  whom  there  is  charity, 
and  a  sincere  conversion  of  heart,  have  the  remission 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  53 

of  sins  given  him  before  he  seek  it  at  the  priest's 
hands;  if  reconciliation  to  God  be  a  present  and  im- 
mediate sequel  upon  every  such  conversion  or  change ; 
it  must  of  necessity  follow,  seeing  no  man  can  be  a 
true  penitent  or  contrite,  which  doth  not  both  love 
God  and  sincerely  abhor  sin ;  that  therefore  they  all 
before  absolution  attain  forgiveness;  whereunto 
notwithstanding,  absolution  is  pretended  a  cause  so 
necessary,  that  sin,  ivithout  it,  except  in  some  rare 
extraordinary  case,  cannot  possibly  be  remitted. 
Shall  absolution  be  a  cause  producing  and  working 
that  effect,  which  is  ahvays  brought  forth  ivith- 
out it,  and  had,  before  absolution  be  thought  of? 
But  when  they  which  are  thus  beforehand  pardoned 
of  God  shall  come  to  be  also  assoiled  by  the  priest,  I 
would  know  what  force  his  absolution  hath  in  this 
case  ?  Are  they  able  to  say  here,  that  the  priest  doth 
remit  any  thing  ?  Yet  when  any  of  ours  ascribeth 
the  work  of  remission  to  God,  and  interpreted  the 
priest's  sentence  to  be  but  a  solemn  declaration  of 
that  which  God  himself  hath  already  performed, 
they  scorn  at  it,"  &c,  (p.  98.)  "Therefore,  the 
further  we  wade  the  better  we  see  it  still  appears  that 
the  priest  doth  never  in  absolution,  no  not  so  much  as 
by  way  of  service  and  ministry,  really  either  forgive 
them,  take  away  the  uncleanness  or  remove  the  punish- 
ment of  sin  ;  but  if  the  party  penitent  become  contrite, 
he  hath,  by  their  own  grant,  absolution,  before  abso- 
lution ;  if  not  contrite,  although  the  priest  should  seem 
a  thousand  times  to  absolve  him,  all  were  in  vain." 
5* 


»j4  an  examination  OF 

"  If  there  be  a  will  and  desire  to  return,  he  (God) 
receiveth,  embraceth,  and  omittelh  nothing,  which 
may  restore  ns  to  former  happiness ;  yea,  that  which 
is  yet  above  all  the  rest,  albeit  we  cannot,  in  the  duty 
of  satisfying  him,  attain  what  we  ought  and  would, 
but  come  far  behind  our  mark,  he  taketh  neverthe- 
less in  good  worth,  that  little  which  we  do  ;  be  it  never 
so  mean,  we  lose  not  our  labour  therein.  The  least 
and  lowest  step  of  repentance  in  St.  Chrysostom's 
judgment  serveth,  and  setteth  us  above  them  that 
perish  in  their  sin.  Let  not,  therefore,  the  imperfect 
fear;  let  them  only  proceed  and  go  forward." 

It  is  plain  that  whatever  Hooker  may  have  held  or 
taught,  he  Mid  not  hold  or  teach  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bishop.  It  is  plain  also,  that  Hooker,  in  stating  the 
practice  of  the  early  church  as  to  private  confession 
and  absolution,  did  not  mean  it  as  matter  of  necessary 
discipline.  For  he  says,  the  church  is  "not  denied  to 
have  authority  either  of  abridging  or  enlarging  the 
use  and  exercise"  thereof,  and  that  the  English  church 
had  "  hitherto  thought  it  the  safer  to  ay  to  refer  men's 
hidden  crimes  unto  God  and  themselves  only."  And 
it  is  evident,  that  if  the  early  discipline  was  not  bind- 
ing on  the  English  church,  but  might  be  varied  as  in 
her  godly  judgment  seemeth  best ;  the  American  church 
hath  the  same  liberty  to  make  such  other  alterations 
as  she  may  judge  most  safe  and  expedient. 

What  thought  Jewell  of  this  private  confession? 
Did  he  consider  it  of  a  sacramental  character,  or  re- 
quiring the  presence  and  judgment  of  a  priest  ?     Surely 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  55 

he  did  not,  for  in  his  "treatise  of  the  Sacraments," 
after  considering  confession  unto  God,  he  says,  (Works, 
Vol.  VIII.  p.  60,)  "  The  other  sort  of  confession 
made  unto  men,  I  do  not  condemn.  It  may  do  much 
good,  if  well  used — Saint  James  commendeth  it  among 
the  faithful ;  /Acknowledge  your  faults  one  to  another, 
and  pray  one  for  another,  that  ye  may  be  healed.'  " 
He  speaketh  not  of  priest  or  minister,  but  of  every 
one  of  the  faithful.  Every  Christian  may  do  this 
help  unto  another,  to  take  knowledge  of  the  secret  and 
mnevgriefofthe  heart,  to  look  upon  the  wound  which 
sin  and  wickedness  hath  made,  and  by  godly  advice, 
and  ea  ne  t  prayer  for  him,  to  recover  his  brother. 
"  That  the  priest  should  hear  the  private  confessions 
of  the  people,  and  listen  to  their  whisperings ;  that 
every  man  should  be  bound  to  their  au  icular  con 
fession ;  it  is  no  commandment  or  ordinance  of  God  ; 
it  is  devised  and  established  by  men,  and  was  lately 
confirmed  by  Innocentius  the  Third." 

But  to  what  purpose  should  the  presence  of  a  priest 
be  deemed  necessary  in  this  private  examination?  We 
have  already  seen  from  Hooker,  that  his  absolution 
availeth  nothing,  even  "by  way  of  service  and  mi- 
nistry," to  convey  pardon ;  for  that  the  contrite  are  al- 
ready pardoned  before  his  absolution,  and  to  those  who 
are  not  contrite,  his  absolution,  ever  so  often  repeated, 
convey eth  no  remission. 

Is  help  required  in  offering  counsel  and  comfort  to 
one  whose  conscience  is  troubled?  To  this  a  priest  is 
not  necessarily  required,  for  as  we  have  seen  from 


•56  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

Jewell,  that  good  office  may  be  performed  by  a  godly 
layman.  Is  it  because  sacrifices  to  God  can  only  be 
offered  by  a  priest?  Every  faithful  Christian  hath 
the  inward  priesthood,  which  enables  him  to  offer 
the  spiritual  sacrifice  of  his  private  confession  and 
prayer  unto  God; — for  thus  says  Jewell,  (Works,  Vol. 
IX.  p.  458,)  "But  ye  teU  us  there  is  a  priesthood 
internal,  and  a  priesthood  external — and  there  is  a 
difference  between  laymen  and  priests.  There  is  not 
one  of  us  that  ever  taught  otherwise.  We  know 
jJiat  the  priest  or  minister  of  the  Church  of  God  is  di- 
vided from  the  rest  of  his  brethren,  as  was  the  tribe 
of  Levi  from  the  children  of  Israel— and  hath  a  special 
office  over  the  people.  Neither  may  any  man  force 
himself  into  that  office  without  lawful  calling.  But 
as  touching  the  inward  priesthood  and  exercise  of 
the  soul,  we  say,  even  as  St.  Peter  and  St.  John  and 
Tertullian  have  said ;  in  this  sense  every  faithful  Chris- 
tian man  is  a  priest,  and  offereth  unto  God  spiritual 
sacrifices.  In  this  only  sense,  I  say,  and  none  other- 
wise. Now,  if  any  man  shall  think  it  strange  to  hear 
a  layman  in  any  sense  called  a  priest,  may  it  please 
him  to  peruse  some  part  of  that  hereafter  followeth  in 
this  Defence.  There  shall  he  find  by  the  authorities 
of  Saint  Augustine,  Saint  Ambrose,  Saint  Hierome, 
and  Saint  Chrysostom,  that  whosoever  is  a  member 
of  Christ's  body,  whosoever  is  a  child  of  the  Church, 
whosoever  is  baptized  in  Christ,  and  beareth  his  name, 
is  fully  invested  with  this  priesthood,  and  therefore 
may  justly  be  called  a  priest.     And  wheresoever  (here 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  57 

be  three  such  together,  as#  Tertullian  saith,  yea,  though 
they  be  only  laymen,  yet  have  they  a  church."  St. 
Augustine  saith,  "Everyman  offereth  up  the  sacrifice 
of  our  Lord's  passion  for  his  sins."  Likewise,  St.  Cy- 
prian :  "  All  men,  that  of  the  name  of  Christ  be  called 
Christians,  offer  up  unto  God  the  daily  sacrifice,  being 
ordained  of  God  the  priests  of  holiness.  Thus  we  see 
all  Christian  men  are  priests,  and  offer  up  to  God  the 
daily  sacrifice,  that  is,  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  passion." 

From  what  has  been  offered  upon  the  construction 
of  the  rubric,  and  from  the  quotations  I  have  made 
from  Latimer,  Hooker,  Jewell,  and  the  Homily,  the 
conclusion  seems  inevitable,  that  the  Church,  of  Eng- 
land never  at  any  time  since  the  Reformation,  has  re- 
garded a  particular  confession  of  sins  to  a  priest — a 
numbering  of  them — a  weighing  of  them,  as  on  any 
occasion  either  necessary,  desirable,  or  allowable ;  that 
she  nowhere  recognises  the  doctrine  of  "the  necessity 
of  priestly  absolution  in  any  case,  to  the  remission  of 
mortal  sins;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  her  teaching  is, 
according  to  Hooker  and  the  Homily,  that  the  absolu- 
tion is  merely  declaratory  of  wThat  God  has  arready 
done  if  the  sinner  be  truly  contrite,  and  utterly  with- 
out effect  if  he  be  not  contrite ;  and  is  therefore  not  a 
"  periodical  sponge"  to  wipe  out  sins,  but  an  assurance 
of  God's  willingness,  and  his  promise  to  forgive  the 
penitent,  and  therefore  likely  to  carry  comfort  to  the 
hearts  of  those  who  feel  in  themselves  true  contrition 
for  their  sins. 

In  one  respect  the  Churches  of  England  and  the 


58  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

United  States  differ ;  the  English  allows,  and  in  one 
case  directs  a  private  absolution  to  be  pronounced  to 
the  penitent ;  while  our  church  allows  it  not. 

I  am  far  from  supposing  this  to  be  any  essential 
difference  between  the  two  churches.  Such  an  abso- 
lution, properly  understood,  involves  necessarily  no 
superstition,  "  no  invasion  of  the  prerogative  of  the 
Searcher  of  hearts;"  and,  not  being  in  any  case  re- 
quired but  only  in  some  cases  recommended,  interposes 
no  barrier  to  full  communion  between  the  two  churches. 
But  our  church  has,  nevertheless,  struck  out  of  her 
Liturgy  and  Prayer  Book  all  authority  for  a  private 
absolution.  She  has  done  this  in  virtue  of  an  undoubted 
authority;  for  the  private  absolution  " being  neither 
commanded  by  Christ  nor  necessary  to  salvation," 
being  according  to  the  view  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  well  as  our  own,  not  a  necessary  and  perpetual 
discipline  of  the  church;  she,  as  a  national  church, 
had  the  same  authority  over  this  as  over  any  mat- 
ter of  discipline  whatever.  She  acted  properly,  ac- 
cording to  Bishop  White,  as  already  quoted,  and  ac- 
cording to  Bishop  Brownel  (note  eighth  on  the  Morn- 
ing Prayer,)  "  the  compilers  of  our  liturgy  have  pru- 
dently omitted  it  altogether,  since  it  is  susceptible  of  an 
interpretation  which  may  be  thought  to  savour  too 
much  of  the  abuses  of  absolution  in  the  Romish 
church." 

But  whether  wisely  and  prudently  omitted  by  our 
church  or  not,  t  is  omitted.  It  belongs  not  to  our 
services,  and  cannot  be  lawfully  used  under  the  au- 


59 

thority  of  our  church,  more  than  the  Athanasian  creed, 
or  the  prayers  for  the  king  and  royal  family  in  the 
English  book. 

But  in  what  sense  is  this  absolution  used  in  the 
English  service?  By  some  it  is  said  that  the  indica- 
tive part,  "  I  absolve,"  &c,  is  a  remission  as  between 
the  sinner  and  God.  By  others,  that  it  is  only  a  re- 
mission of  those  church  censures  to  which  the  sinner 
might  stand  exposed  or  have  actually  incurred. 

Now  the  former  sense  is  attributed  to  it  by  Bishop 
Ives,  and  he  dismisses  Dr.  Wheatly,  who  entertains  a 
contrary  opinion,  by  the  assertion  "that  nothing  short 
of  the  most  inveterate  and  blinding  attachment  to 
theory  could  have  led  to  such  an  interpretation." 
Well,  this  is  a  convenient  method  of  setting  aside  the 
judgment  of  a  learned  and  able  divine  of  the  highest 
eminence  in  the  church,  and  whose  work  on  the  Com- 
mon Prayer  has  been  included  in  the  list  of  books  ap- 
pointed by  our  house  of  Bishops  to  be  studied  by  all 
candidates  for  Orders.  But  what  is  the  theory  which 
has  blinded  the  eyes  of  this  otherwise  clear-sighted 
man ;  and  does  not  the  Bishop  think  it  just  possible 
that  an  advocate  of  his  own  system  may  experience, 
unknown  to  himself,  a  little  of  the  same  blinding  influ- 
ence? But  let  Dr.  Wheatly  speak  for  himself,  and  let 
us  do  him  the  justice  to  see  how  blind  he  was  when 
he  wrote  on  this  subject.  [Section  fifth  of  his  Com- 
ments on  the  Visitation  Office.]  "  After  the  sick  per- 
son has  made  a  special  confession  of  his  sins,  as  has 
been  mentioned  above,  the  priest  is  to  absolve  him  if 


60  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

he  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it,  after  this  sort :  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  left  power  to  his  church 
to  absolve  all  sinners,  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in 
him,  of  his  great  mercy  forgive  thee  thine  offences; 
and,  by  his  authority  committed  to  me,  I  absolve  thee 
from  all  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Amen. 

"Now  whether  the  church  designs,  by  this  form, 
that  the  priest  shall  directly  convey  God's  pardon  to 
the  conscience  of  the  sinner,  for  his  sins  and  offences 
committed  against  Him;  or  whether  that  he  shall  only 
remit  the  censures  of  the  church,  and  continue  him  in 
the  privilege  of  church-communion,  which  he  may 
be  supposed  to  have  forfeited  by  the  sins  he  has  con- 
fessed, is  thought  by  some  not  to  be  clearly  or  deter- 
minately  expressed.  But  if  we  look  forward  to  the 
Collect  immediately  after  to  be  used,  it  looks  as  if  the 
church  did  only  intend  the  remission  of  ecclesiastical 
censures  and  bonds.  For,  in  that  prayer,  the  penitent 
is  said  still  most  earnestly  to  desire  pardon  and 
forgiveness;  which  surely  there  would  be  no  occasion 
to  do,  if  he  had  been  actually  pardoned  and  forgiven 
by  God,  by  virtue  of  the  absolution  pronounced  be- 
fore. Again,  the  priest  offers  a  special  request,  that 
God  would  preserve  and  continue  him  in  the  unity 
of  the  church;  which  seems  to  suppose  that  the  fore- 
going absolution  had  been  pronounced  in  order  to  re- 
store him  to  its  peace.  And,  therefore,  since  the  form 
will  bear  this  sense,  without  straining  or  putting  any 
force  upon  the  words,  I  hope  it  will  be  no  offence  to 


EISHOP  IVEs'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  61 

interpret  them  so,  as  is  most  consistent  with  the  origi- 
nal commission  given  by  our  Lord,  and  the  exercise  of 
it  in  the  purest  ages  of  the  world." 

In  the  sections  following,  Dr.  Wheatly  examines 
the  commission  given  by  our  Lord  to  his  church — the 
power  of  the  keys — and  shows  why  he  deems  it  to 
have  been  a  "power  of  admitting  into,  and  shutting 
out  of  the  Christian  church;"  the  passage  is  too  long 
to  be  here  inserted,  but  I  observe  from  a  note,  that  in 
that  opinion  he  is  supported  by  Dr.  Hammond,  Dr. 
Marshall  and  Archbishop  Potter.  And  in  this  view, 
Jewell,  Burnet,  and  Bishop  Whittingham,  seem  also 
to  concur. 

For  in  the  "Apology,"  Jewell  thus  expresses  him- 
self: "We  say,  that  the  office  of  loosing  consisteth  in 
this  point :  that  the  minister  should  either  offer,  by  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  the  merits  of  Christ,  and 
full  pardon  to  such  as  have  lowly  and  contrite  hearts, 
and  do  unfeignedly  repent  themselves,  pronouncing 
unto  the  same  a  sure  and  undoubted  forgiveness  of 
their  sins  and  hope  of  everlasting  salvation ;  or  else, 
that  the  same  minister,  when  any  have  offended  their 
brother's  minds  with  a  great  offence,  with  a  nota- 
ble and  open  fault,  whereby  they  have,  as  it  were, 
banished  and  made  themselves  strangers  from  the  com- 
mon fellowship,  and  from  the  body  of  Christ — then, 
after  perfect  amendment  of  such  persons,  doth  recon- 
cile them,  and  bring  them  home  again,  and  restore 
them  to  the  company  and  unity  of  the  faithful." — 
(Works,  VIII.  288.)  And  on  this  passage,  Bishop 
6 


62  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

Whittingham,in  his  edition,  page  39,  remarks:  "  Two 
kinds  of  absolution  are  here  recognised:  first,  vir- 
tual, by  declaration  of  the  terms  of  pardon:  such 
are  the  forms  of  absolution  in  our  service.  Second, 
official,  by  re-admission  of  expelled  communicants. 
A  statement,  the  same  in  effect,  is  made  by  Burnet: 
Upon  repentance  sincerely  begun,  and  honestly  pur- 
sued, we  do  in  general,  as  the  heralds  of  God's  mercy, 
and  the  ministers  of  His  gospel,  pronounce  to  our 
people  daily,  the  offers  that  are  made  us  of  mercy  and 
pardon  by  Christ  Jesus.  This  we  do  in  our  daily 
service,  and  in  a  more  peculiar  manner  before  we  go 
to  the  Holy  Communion.  We  do  also,  as  we  are  a 
body  that  may  be  offended  with  the  sins  of  others, 
forgive  the  scandals  committed  against  the  church." 
Dr.  Wheatly's  interpretation,  supported  by  such  names 
as  Hammond,  Marshall,  Potter,  Jewell,  Burnet  and 
Whittingham,  may  well  be  deemed  the  true  exposition 
of  the  form ;  and  if  so,  the  only  difference  between  the 
English  church  and  ours  is,  that  the  former  authorizes 
the  priest  to  pronounce  an  absolution  from  church 
censures,  and  the  latter  does  not. 

But  if  Bishop  Ives'  interpretation  be  correct,  and 
Dr.  Wheatly's  erroneous;  if  the  absolution  be  intended 
to  remit  all  sins,  as  between  God  and  the  sick  person, 
and  so  to  restore  him  to  God's  favour,  the  consequence 
is  fatal  to  the  theory  of  the  Bishop.  For  the  sick 
person  is  to  be  moved  to  make  a  special  confession 
only  "if  he  feels  his  conscience  troubled  with  any 
weighty  matter,"  and,  as  I  have  already  shown,  then 


63 

only  of  the  matter  which  troubles  his  conscience ;  and 
upon  this  confession,  he  is  absolved  of  "  all  his  sins;" 
and  so  some  sins  are  pardoned,  though  not  confessed — 
which  is  against  the  Bishop's  doctrine  of  confessing 
all,  "  one  by  one,"  in  order  to  the  effect  of  absolution. 
Again,  if  the  sick  person  be  not  troubled  "with  any 
weighty  matter,"  he  is  not  to  be  moved  to  confess  at 
all,  and  in  that  case  no  absolution  is  to  be  pronounced; 
for  the  rubric  says,  "after  ivhich  confession  the 
priest  shall  absolve,"  &c.  Now,  in  such  case,  are 
the  sins  of  the  sick  person  remitted  or  not  ?  If  they 
are,  then  by  the  judgment  of  the  English  church  mor- 
tal sins  may  be  remitted  without  either  confession  to, 
or  absolution  by,  a  priest;  and  so,  by  her  judgment, 
there  is  "  no  necessity  either  of  such  confession  or  ab- 
solution to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin," — which  is 
directly  against  the  Bishop's  doctrine.  If  such  sins 
are  not  remitted  to  the  sick  person,  then  he  dies  in 
his  sins ;  and  not  from  his  neglect,  but  from  the  igno- 
rance or  unfaithfulness  of  the  church,  which  either 
knew  not,  or  knowing  said  not,  that  confession  to  a 
priest  of  mortal  sins  is  necessary  to  remission. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  the  condemnation  by  the 
Church  of  England  is  only  of  an  enforced  private  con- 
fession, and  that  she  allows  a  voluntary  one.  The 
condemnation  of  that  church  is  of  auricular  confes- 
sion as  then  used,  and  her  allowance  is  of  what  she 
deemed  a  fitting  substitute  therefor — a  "  true  and  pro- 
per confession;"  to  wit,  that  persons  finding  them- 
selves "  troubled  in  conscience  "  might  repair  to  their 


64  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

"  curate,  or  to  some  other  godly  learned  man,"  and 
"show  the  trouble  and  doubt  of  their  consciences  to 
them,"  not  that  they  might  offer,  or  the  priest  hear, 
a  particular  statement  of  all  their  mortal  sins.  The 
church,  then,  meant  (as  I  think  clearly  appears)  to 
condemn  the  enforcing,  and  to  disallow  the  use  of 
these  private  confessions  of  all  mortal  sins.  But  sup- 
pose it  otherwise,  does  not  the  Bishop's  doctrine  com- 
pel private  confession  ?  Surely ;  if  the  doctrine  of 
Rome  compels  it.  Her  penitents  are  not  seized,  and 
by  physical  force  or  bodily  pain  compelled  to  make 
confession ;  but  because  she  teaches  that  private 
confession  unto  a  priest  and  his  absolution  are  neces- 
sary to  the  remission  of  sin,  she  thereby  puts  a  moral 
compulsion  upon  her  children,  to  make  confession ; 
since  what  is  necessary  to  remission  of  sins  must  be 
done,  if  remission  of  sins  be  necessary  to  salvation. 
What  does  the  Bishop  teach  ?  the  necessity  of  priestly 
absolution  after  a  private  particular  confession,  in 
order  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin.  What  teaches 
the  Church  of  Rome  ?  According  to  her  distinguished 
prelate,  Trevern,  Bishop  of  Strasburgh,  she  teaches 
thus:  "If  the  confession  made  to  God  alone  were 
sufficient,  Jesus  Christ  would  have  given  to  his  minis- 
ters the  power  of  absolving  to  no  purpose,  because  the 
first  means  being  more  easy  and  of  as  certain  an  effect, 
it  is  clear  that  sinners  would  be  perfectly  satisfied 
with  it."  "  We  see  clearly  that  by  investing  his 
ministers  with  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing, 
he  attaches  to  this  power  the  promise  of  pardon ; 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  GO 

but  we  no  where  read  that  he  has  attached  it  to  con- 
fession made  only  to  God.  In  order  to  obtain  the 
pardon  of  his  (the  penitent's)  faults,  it  is  no  longer 
sufficient  for  him  to  lament  them  in  himself  and  before 
God ;  he  must,  also,  ivhen  it  can  be  done,  humble 
himself  so  far  as  to  confess  them  without  disguise  and 
to  the  best  of  his  power,  in  order  to  receive  the  bene- 
fit of  sacerdotal  absolution." 

Why  here  is  the  Bishop's  own  doctrine  in  all  its 
parts :  priestly  absolution  required  by  the  same  inter- 
pretation of  the  power  of  the  keys,  necessary  to  the 
same  end — the  pardon  or  remission  of  sins — to  be  ob- 
tained upon  the  same  confession  ;  a  confession  not  to 
God  only,  but  to  the  priest,  and  subject  to  the  same 
qualification ;  where  it  may  be  done  or  may  be  had. 

What  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  English 
or  American  Bishops  is  here  fully  and  plainly  laid 
down  by  the  Romish  Bishop  of  Strasburgh,  and  Bishop 
Ives  is  found  side  by  side  in  ecclesiastical  position  with 
Trevern,  and  opposed  to  White,  and  Hobart,  and 
Ravenscroft,  and  Brownell,  and  Whittingham,  to  La- 
timer, and  Jewell,  and  Hooker,  and  Burnet,  and  (so 
far  as  we  know,  or  have  reason  to  think,)  to  all  the 
Bishops  in  the  Reformed  Church  in  England  and 
America. 

When,  then,  the  Homily  I  have  cited  condemned 
the  enforced  "numbering  of  sins,"  as  being  against 
"  true  Christian  liberty,"  it  condemned  the  very  doc- 
trine now  put  forth  by  Bishop  Ives. 

Indeed  it  must  be  said,  in  justice  to  the  Bishop  of 
6* 


OG  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

Strasburgh,  that  the  doctrine  of  Bishop  Ives  is  even 
more  pointedly  condemned  by  the  Homily  than  the 
Romish  doctrine  as  stated  by  him ;  for  all  that  he  re- 
quires is,  that  the  penitent  shall  not  voluntarily  "dis- 
guise" his  sins,  but  confess  them  all  "to  the  best  of 
his  power,"  whilst  Bishop  Ives  does  not  in  terms  make 
any  such  allowance  for  infirmity  of  memory,  but  ap- 
parently requires,  at  all  hazards,  a  confession  of  every 
mortal  sin,  "  one  by  one,"  in  order  to  the  penitent's 
receiving  the  benefit  of  absolution.  And  thus  a  bad 
memory  becomes  the  unpardonable  sin ! 

Indeed  Bishop  Ives  makes  the  necessity  of  priestly 
absolution  to  remission  of  sins  to  be  greater  and  more 
stringent  than,  according  to  the  church,  is  the  neces- 
sity of  the  sacraments  to  salvation.  For  the  chmch 
only  declares  these  to  be  "generally"  necessary,  and 
by  that  qualification  she  avoids  giving  sentence  of 
condemnation  against  those  who,  from  ignorance  or 
inveterate  prejudice,  and  other  like  causes,  may  not 
seek,  as  well  as  those  who  cannot  obtain  them ;  while 
the  Bishop  declares  the  necessity  for  priestly  absolu- 
tion in  all  cases  "where  it  may  be  had," — thereby 
giving  it  more  importance  than  the  church  gives  to 
the  sacraments.  For  why  are  the  sacraments  ever 
necessary  to  salvation,  but  because  they  are  com- 
manded by  Christ,  and  are,  therefore,  necessary  to  the 
remission  of  sins?  Nothing  prevents  salvation  save 
sin;  and  so  sin  remitted,  salvation  follows,  the  only 
obstacle  thereto,  sin,  being  by  remission  taken  out  of 
the  way.     Therefore,  as  by  an  undeniable  consequence 


67 

from  the  Bishop's  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  priestly- 
absolution  to  the  remission  of  sin,  such  absolution  is 
necessary  to  salvation ;  it  follows,  that  the  sacraments 
may  be  unnecessary  to  salvation  (being  only  generally 
necessary,)  when,  under  like  circumstances,  the  neces- 
sity of  absolution  may  remain — that  being  always 
necessary  wThere  it  may  be  had,  and  only  to  be  dis- 
pensed with  when  it  cannot  be  had.  And  so,  by  the 
Bishop's  doctrine,  priestly  absolution  is  more  generally 
required  and  less  readily  dispensed  with,  and,  conse- 
quently, of  higher  moment  in  our  system  than  the 
sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  himself. 

Upon  the  whole,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  form  an  opi- 
nion as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Liturgy  and  Articles,  and 
in  order  to  do  this,  may  consider  and  compare  these 
with  the  Homilies  set  forth  and  declared  by  the  church 
to  contain  a  godly  and  true  doctrine — to  examine  what 
has  been  the  sense  attached  to  her  teaching  by  the 
wisest  and  best  of  those,  who,  in  England,  aided  in  the 
Reformation,  or  in  this  country  revised  our  Liturgy — 
and  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  hold  and  maintain  that  inter- 
pretation which,  upon  such  examination,  we  find,  on 
all  hands,  adopted  as  true :  then  may  we,  I  think,  upon 
most  sure  and  certain  grounds,  some  of  which  have 
been  here  given,  conclude  that  the  doctrine  set  forth 
by  the  Bishop,  as  to  the  necessity  of  priestly  absolu- 
tion to  the  remission  of  sins,  is  not,  and  never  has 
been,  the  doctrine  either  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
England  or  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States — but,  on  the  contrary,-  hath  always  been 


68  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

by  both  rejected  and  condemned;  and,  consequently, 
that  all  the  dutiful  children  of  our  branch  of  the  church 
must,  or  at  least  may,  reject  and  disavow  it. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Bishop  is,  as  formally  announced 
in  his  two  Pastorals,  sufficient  to  produce  alarm  in 
every  true  son  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  alarm  will  certainly  not 
be  allayed  when  we  consider  that  doctrine  in  connex- 
ion with  other  teaching  and  other  conduct  of  the  Bi- 
shop, which  give  it  additional  force  and  significance, 
and  open  most  fully  its  true  extent  and  application. 

He  has  instituted  at  Valle  Crucis  a  monastic  order, 
a  ociety  within  the  church,  composed  of  persons  bound 
to  him  by  a  vow  of  celibacy,  poverty,  and  obedience, 
the  form  of  which  the  Bishop  does  not  give  us  in  his 
Pastoral,  though  he  lets  out  the  objects  of  the  society 
and  the  duties  of  the  orders.  He  has  given  to  the 
members,  as  their  peculiar  dress,  "a  black  cassock,  ex- 
tending from  the  throat  to  the  ankles,"  answering  to 
that  worn  by  members  of  the  Romish  Order  of  Jesus. 
He  allows  to  be  placed  on  the  altar  a  pyx,  in  which 
are  reserved  the  remaining  consecrated  elements  after 
a  communion,  a  practice  used  in  the  Romish  Church, 
but  disallowed  and  forbidden  by  ours.  Again:  there 
is  used  at  Valle  Crucis,  with  the  approbation  of  the 
Bishop,  a  little  manual  of  devotion,  in  which,  the  Bi- 
shop says,  (note  p.  24,)  were  some  "  expressions  " 
which,  upon  being  objected  to,  were  by  him  promptly 
altered.  Now,  these  "expressions"  were  prayers  to 
the  Virgin   Mary  and  the  Saints,  and  these  prayers 


69 

the  Bishop  does  not  deem  wrong  in  principle,  for  in  a 
letter  to  one  of  his  presbyters,  he  says :  "  I  feel  bound, 
however,  to  say,  that  while  I  allow  no  prayers  to  the 
Virgin  Mary  or  to  Saints,  not  because  they  are  wrong 
in  themselves,  but  because  they  are  liable  to  abuse,  I 
do  still  retain,"  &c. 

Further,  it  is  believed  in  the  Diocese,  upon  the  state- 
ments of  those  who  had  opportunity  to  know  the  truth, 
and  no  motive  to  falsify  it,  that  the  Bishop  at  one  time 
expressed,  in  the  presence  of  several  clergymen,  the 
opinion  that  our  church  is  in  schism,  and  that  he  could 
not  advise  a  Romanist  to  leave  his  communion  for  ours 
in  order  to  obtain  greater  religious  advantages;  that, 
at  another,  he  announced  to  two  of  his  clergy  an  in- 
tention to  send  a  " penitentiary"  through  the  parishes 
in  the  Diocese  to  receive  the  confessions  of  the  people ; 
and  that,  at  a  Confirmation,  he  publicly  declared,  that 
confession  is  not  to  be  made  to  God  directly,  but 
through  a  priest.  Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that  these 
things  are  calculated  to  give  a  more  decided  Romish 
character  to  the  formal  teachings  of  the  pastoral,  show- 
ing, as  they  do,  that  the  Bishop  not  only  coincides 
with  that  church  in  holding  the  necessity  of  priestly 
absolution,  but  also  in  the  propriety  of  monastic  orders 
of  clergymen,  living  and  acting  under  a  distinct  orga- 
nization of  their  own — the  lawfulness  and  expediency 
of  vowing  celibacy  and  of  promising  other  obedience 
to  the  Bishop  as  the  head  of  such  an  order,  than  the 
church  deems  to  be  due  him  in  his  episcopal  character, 
and  that  he  holds  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  invo- 


70  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

cation  of  Saints  to  be  lawful,  though  our  Church  de- 
clares it  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God.  Now,  these 
views  were  not  always  the  views  of  the  Bishop.  He 
once  looked  upon  Romanism  neither  with  favour  nor 
allowance.  In  1836  he  addressed  a  solemn  Charge  to 
his  clergy,  which  was  "  published  by  request  of  the 
Convention"  of  the  Diocese,  a  Charge  full  of  sound 
Protestant  teaching,  eloquently  expressed,  and  ably 
enforced.  On  the  third  page  will  be  found  this  pas- 
sage: "  Never,  I  am  convinced,  has  there  been  a  pe- 
riod since  the  establishment  of  the  Redeemer's  king- 
dom, bearing  more  critically  upon  its  interests  than  the 
one  in  which  we  have  been  summoned  to  our  post,  as 
watchmen  on  the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  This  period  in- 
deed appears  to  be  marked  by  a  peculiarity  that  gives 
it  a  feaiful  distinction.  There  have  been  other  periods 
rerhaps  as  dark  and  trying.  The  awful  reign  of  Anti- 
Christ  immediately  preceding  the  Reformation,  the 
desperate  alliance  of  the  17th  century  between  infide- 
lity, dissent,  and  Romanism  in  the  mother  country, 
formed  a  crisis  of  evils,  it  is  true,  of  the  most  alarm- 
ing description.  But  these  evils  brought  with  them 
their  remedy.  Their  odious  and  unblushing  charac- 
ter aroused,  at  once,  into  action,  every  faithful  son  of 
the  Church,  and  secured  a  united  effort — an  effort 
directed  by  more  than  human  skill — for  her  rescue  and 
defence.  But  now,  the  same  evils  under  a  different 
guise  are  coming  upon  her,  and  her  sons  are  compara- 
tively asleep:  few  seem  willing  to  contemplate  or  ac- 
knowledge her  danger.     Religious  excitements,  fol- 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  71 

lowed  on  the  one  hand  by  a  rapid  increase  of  infidelity, 
and  on  the  other  by  the  tumults  of  schism,  or  the  dis- 
asters of  bold  experiment,  darken  ihe  fair  face,  and 
weaken  the  bands  of  Protestantism — while  Popery, 
taking  advantage  of  this  state  of  miserable  disorder,  is 
again  rallying  her  scattered  forces,  and  making  incre- 
dible advances  to  an  ascendency  in  our  land  of 
freedom ."  Thus  spoke  the  Bishop  in  1836  of  Roman- 
ism, of  its  character  and  of  its  efforts  to  establish  a 
dreaded  ascendency.  But  now,  he  seems  scarcely  to 
recognise  his  position,  or  that  of  the  Church,  as  "  Pro- 
testantism," or  in  any  sense  antagonistic  to  Rome. 
And,  amongst  the  reasons  assigned  in  a  note,  (pastoral, 
p.  69,)  why  he  never  speaks  or  writes  against  Roman- 
ists, we  find  these:  "  They  who  speak  against  others 
are  very  likely  to  speak  falsely."  "  However  great 
may  be  their  errors,  Romanists  belong  to  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  hence  to  the  same  family  with  us,  and 
it  is  neither  lawful  to  speak  against  the  members  of 
Christ's  body,  nor  in  good  taste  to  speak  against  mem- 
bers of  our  own  family."  Who  then  has  changed? 
For  a  change  there  has  been  somewhere.  If  the  pa- 
pal power,  immediately  preceding  the  Reformation, 
was  Anti-Christ,  when  did  it  cease  to  be  Anti-Chris- 
tian, and  become  a  member  of  Christ's  body?  If  it 
was  necessary  and  proper  in  1836  to  warn  the  clergy 
of  the  Diocese  against  the  efforts  of  Popery  to  esta- 
blish an  ascendency  "  in  our  land  of  freedom,"  how  is 
it  that  Romanists  are  now  members  of  one  family  with 
us,  and  good  taste  warns  us  not  to  speak  against  them? 


72  AN   EXAMINATION  OF 

Has  Popery  changed?  Has  it  abandoned  one  single 
position  of  doctrine  held  by  it  just  previous  to  the  Re- 
formation— relaxed  one  unlawful  term  of  communion 
then  prescribed — or  modified,  in  any  respect,  the  de- 
crees of  Trent,  or  the  creed  of  Pius  the  Fourth?  Has 
it  ceased  since  1836  to  make  efforts  for  ascendency  in 
our  country,  or  pursued  them  with  less  of  energy  and 
success?  Or,  have  the  views  of  the  Bishop  changed, 
and  does  he  now  feel  a  kindly  inclination  towards  the 
system  which  he  then  denounced,  and  look  with  com- 
placency upon  an  ascendency  which  he  then  dreaded? 
And  which  of  his  official  acts:  that  Charge  of  '36,  or 
the  Pastoral  of  '49,  both  solemn,  formal  promulga- 
tions of  opinion  and  doctrine,  and  bearing  the  impress 
of  the  same  episcopal  authority,  are  we  to  take  as 
defining  the  true  positibn  of  "  our  branch  of  the  one 
Catholic  Church?"  Which  are  we  to  follow?  or  may 
we  presume  so  far  as  to  choose  between  them? 

Again,  in  the  same  Charge,  he  fully  recognises  the 
authority  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  over  himself  as  a  Protestant  Bishop,  as 
well  as  over  his  clergy,  and  his  and  their  obligations 
not  to  depart  at  all  from  her  authoritative  standards 
of  doctrine;  for,  he  thus  expresses  himself,  (page  10,) 
"Bound  by  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  at  the  altar  of 
God,  to  give  your  faithful  diligence  always  so  to  mi- 
nister the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  Lord  hath  command- 
ed, and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same,  it  can 
require  no  words  from  me  to  enforce  the  further  and 
consequent  obligations  to  diligence  in  reading  the  Holy 


BISHOP  IVEs'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  73 

Scriptures,  and  in  such  studies  as  help  to  a  knowledge 
of  them.  As  Protestants ,  we  agree  in  taking  the 
Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  faith,  so  that  whatever  is 
not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not 
to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed 
as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  neces- 
sary to  salvation.  But  as  ministers  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  we  have  made  a  solemn  decla- 
ration of  our  belief  in  her  doctrines  as  scriptural, 
and  have  vowed  fidelity  to  her  interests,  and  submis- 
sion to  her  authority,  in  diligently  setting  them  forth 
as  the  doctrines  of  God.  We  are  not  at  liberty, 
therefore,  to  depart,  in  the  slightest  degree,  from 
the  faith  of  the  Church,  as  expressed  in  her  Articles 
and  Liturgy.  Our  professed  submission  was  volun- 
tary. It  must  be  real  and  unqualified.^  This  was 
his  teaching  in  1836,  but  evidently  it  is  not  that  of  the 
Pastoral  of  '49.  There  is  in  the  last,  a  studied  effort 
to  bind  us  to  the  Liturgy  of  another  Church,  to  keep 
around  us  the  chains  of  a  colonial  dependence  on  the 
Church  of  England,  and,  instead  of  expounding  the 
doctrines  of  our  Church  by  her  own  revised  Liturgy ', 
to  refer,  for  that  purpose,  to  prayers  and  creeds,  and 
absolutions  which  she  has  deliberately  and  carefully 
rejected.  To  her  Articles,  so  binding  in  1836,  what 
submission  does  the  Bishop  now  render?  How  is  it, 
that  he,  having  made  a  solemn  declaration  of  belief  in 
her  doctrines  as  Scriptural,  and  having  vowed  submis- 
sion to  her  authority,  in  diligently  setting  them  forth 
as  the  doctrines  of  God,  wTas  bound  in  1836,  not  to 
7 


74  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

depart  in  the  slightest  degree  from  her  Articles  and 
Liturgy ;  and  yet  he  is  now  at  liberty  to  hold  and  teach 
that,  what  she  has  declared  repugnant  to  the  word 
of  God,  is  not  wrong  in  itself?  Have  her  doctrines 
ceased  to  be  the  doctrines  of  God?  Has  the  Bishop's 
vow  ceased  to  be  binding? 

In  the  same  Charge,  he  says,  (p.  20,)  "The  church 
exacts  of  you  diligence,  by  stated  catechetical  lectures 
and  instruction,  in  informing  the  youth  and  others  of 
your  congregations,  in  her  Liturgy."  Pursuing  this 
theme,  he  thus  expresses  himself,  (p.  21,  22,)  "Let  a 
congregation  be  habituated,  each  Lord's  day,  to  bend 
the  knee  before  their  Almighty  and  most  merciful 
Father,  and  confess  that  they  have  erred  and  strayed 
from  His  ways  like  lost  sheep ;  that  they  have  offended 
against  His  holy  laws;  that  there  is  no  health  in  them; 
that  they  are  miserable  sinners,  and  deserve  to  be 
punished  for  their  offences,  and  let  them  supplicate 
to  be  spared  for  Jesus  Christ's  sake."  "  Let  them  be 
habituated  to  confess  that  from  God  all  holy  desires, 
all  good  counsels  and  all  just  works  do  proceed,  and 
to  beseech  Him  to  indue  them  with  the  grace  of  his 
Holy  Spirit,  to  amend  their  lives  according  to  His 
holy  word."  "Let  them  be  habituated  to  supplicate 
their  good  Lord  to  give  them  a  clean  heart."  (p.  24.) 
"Let  them  be  habituated  thus  to  confess,  to  pray, 
and  to  give  thanks;  their  minds  being  duly  disciplined 
by  instruction  and  admonition,  and  how  feeble  will 
be  the  assaults  of  error!"  Thus  spoke  the  Bishop  in 
1836.     Thus  in  urging  the  clergy  to  discharge  their 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  75 

full  duty  to  their  congregations,  at  a  period  which  he 
deemed  eminently  dangerous  to  faith    and   religious 
fidelity,  he  set  out  the  means  by  which,  under  God, 
their  people  were  to  be  preserved.     In  these  instruc- 
tions can  any  one  discover  even  a  germ  which  might 
be  developed  into  the  Pastorals  of  1849  ?     There  is  no 
mention,  no  hint,  that  priestly  absolution  was  neces- 
sary or  desirable— that  confession  was  to  be  made  to 
man;  or  that  any  agency  between  God  and  man,  save 
the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ,  ought  to  be  sought,  or 
might   be  had  in  the  church,  to  reconcile  us  to  God. 
There  is  no  warning  to  the  people  against  "  the  pre- 
sumption of  trusting  for  pardon  to  a  repentance  not 
accepted  by  a  priest,  and  no  suggestion  to  the  clergy 
.  of  diligence  in  calling  the  people — any  of  the  people — 
to  the  confessing  and  numbering  of  sins,  in  order  to 
the  exercise  of  their  "priestly  judgment"  in  granting 
that  absolution  which  is  necessary,  where  it  may  be 
had,  "  to  the  remission  of  mortal  sin."     Now,  did  these 
things,  in  1836,  belong,  and  did  the  Bishop  then  know 
them  to  belong,  to  the  discipline  or  doctrine  of  the 
church  ?   If  so,  why  did  he  not  urge  them  on  his  clergy  ? 
If  he  knew  them  not,  how  happened  he  to  be  then  igno- 
rant of  a  doctrine  of  the  church  so  important,  and  bound 
up  with  the  hope  of  forgiveness  to  baptized  and  lapsing 
Christians  ? 

It  must  be  apparent,  I  think,  to  all  who  consider 
what  has  been  submitted,  that  there  was,  previously 
to  the  meeting  of  the  late  Diocesan  Convention,  at 
Salisbury,  very  sufficient  cause  of  alarm.     There  was, 


76 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF 


in  fact,  a  great  alarm  every  where  in  the  Diocese — a 
great  anxiety — a  deep  agitation,  pervading  "thought- 
ful and  earnest"  members  of  the  church,  confined  to 
no  particular  parish — to  no  particular  class  of  persons, 
but  general  in  every  parish,  amongst  persons  of  every 
class  ; — a  surprise — a  horror — a  dismay,  to  find  their 
Bishop  appearing  to  have  ceased  to  be  protestant,  and 
to  have  become  Romish  in  his  feelings  and  opinions. 
This  state  of  mind  was  not  confined  to  the  laity,  but 
affected  also  almost  the  entire  body  of  our  settled  and 
established  parochial  clergy.  For  a  short  time,  after 
the  Salisbury  Convention,  a  feeling  of  hope  and  com- 
fort, more  or  less,  prevailed  amongst  our  people,  in 
consequence  of  proceedings  had  in  that  Convention,  to 
which  we  must  now  turn  our  attention. 

On  the  Saturday  of  the  Convention,  the  committee 
on  the  state  of  the  church  made  their  report,  in  which 
they  "deplore  the  existence  amongst  its  members  of 
great  agitation  and  alarm,  arising  from  the  impression 
that  doctrines  have  been  preached,  not  in  accordance 
with  the  Liturgy  and  Articles  of  this  church,  and  that 
ceremonies  and  practices  have  been  introduced,  either 
unauthorized  by  the  customs  of  this  Church,  or  in  plain 
violation  of  ifo  Rubrics;"  and  they  "state  as  their  full 
conviction  that,  whether  the  case  be  so  or  not,  the  far 
greater  part  of  the  clergy  are  entirely  opposed  to  any 
such  departure  from  the  doctrines  of  the  church  ;  that 
they  desire  the  introduction  of  no  ceremonies  un- 
authorized by  the  customs  of  this  church,  and  are  still 
less  tolerant  of  such  as  violate  the  Rubrics."     After 


BISHOP   IVES*   PASTORAL  LETTER.  77 

which  a  Charge  to  the  Clergy  from  the  Bishop  was 
read,  in  these  words: — 

"Brethren  of  the  Clergy,— In  the  report  on 
the  state  of  the  Church,  made  by  members  of  your 
order,  reference  is  made  to  excitement  in  the  Diocese, 
growing  out  of  the  idea  that  doctrines  are  promulged 
and  practices  encouraged  among  us  more  or  Jess  re- 
pugnant to  the  authorized  doctrines  and  usages  of 
our  branch  of  the  church.  As  these  doctrines  and 
practices  are  not  specified,  your  Bishop  can  address 
you  only  in  general  terms.  But  he  does,  by  way  of 
Charge,  hereby  address  you,  and  authorize  you,  when 
you  return  to  your  several  parishes,  to  assure  your 
people,  that  no  efforts  shall  be  wanting  on  his  part, 
so  long  as  God  may  give  him  the  jurisdiction  in  North 
Carolina,  to  hinder  the  inculcation  of  any  doctrine  or 
the  introduction  of  any  practice — come  from  whatever 
quarter  it  may — not  in  strict  accordance  wTith  the 
Liturgy  of  our  church,  as  illustrated  and  defined  by 
those  standards  of  interpretation  authorized  by  the 
Church  itself. 

"  In  respect  to  a  particular  question,  which  has  agi- 
tated the  Diocese  of  late,  the  question  of  auricular  con- 
fession, I  may  here  express  my  conviction  that  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  our  standard  of  Doctrine, 
Discipline  and  Worship,  does  not  authorize  any  clergy- 
man of  this  church  to  teach  or  enforce  such  confession 
as  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  that  the  only  confes- 
sion which  it  authorizes,  is  the  voluntary  confession 
7* 


78  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

of  the  penitent,  in  accordance  with  the  exhortation 

in  the  office  for  the  Holy  Communion." 

In  the  Convention  this  Charge  produced  the  hap- 
piest effect.  When  heard  of  in  the  parishes  it  was 
received  with  general  satisfaction.  Noticing  as  it  did 
the  report  of  the  committee,  and  it  being  well  known 
that  the  reference  in  the  report  was  mainly  to  doc- 
trines taught  and  practices  approved  by  the  Bishop, 
the  Charge  could  be  understood  in  no  other  sense  than 
as  a  denial  of  his  having  preached  the  objectionable 
doctrines,  and  approved  the  objectionable  practices, 
or  else  an  intimation  that  the  Bishop  had  seen  reason 
to  change  his  views,  and  w^ould  change  his  conduct. 
But  it  was  not  long  befjre  we  learned  that  our  hopes 
were  fallacious,  and  that  the  Bishop,  surrounded  by 
the  order  of  the  Holy  Cross,  at  Valle  Crucis,  had  re- 
solved to  press  to  the  utmost  his  objectionable  doc- 
trines, and  to  maintain  them  at  all  hazards.  Then  it 
was,  that,  as  this  report  gained  belief,  the  alarm  and 
agitation  of  the  Diocese  returned,  and  gathered  strength 
from  the  sudden  overthrow  of  that  hope  which  had 
been  produced  by  the  apparently  cordial  agreement 
between  the  Bishop  and  the  Convention. 

For  myself,  I  confess  I  am  not  able  (and  many  are, 
no  doubt,  in  my  situation,)  to  reconcile  the  Bishop's 
Charge,  in  its  evident  meaning,  with  the  ground  as- 
sumed in  his  Pastoral,  towards  these  proceedings  of 
the  Convention.  He  distinctly  admits  in  the  Pastoral 
that  the  report  on  the  state  of  the  church  was  intended 
to  embrace  himself  (page  9;)  that  this  was  well  known 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  79 

at  the  Convention,  and,  by  consequence,  was  then 
known  to  himself.  If  so,  why  did  he  not  in  his  Charge 
at  once  take  the  ground  which  he  has  assumed  in  his 
Pastoral ?  Was  he  too  ill  to  write  a  protest,  while  well 
enough  to  write  the  Charge?  Instead  of  a  rep  o^f, 
he  refers  to  the  report  with  apparent  satisfaction,  and, 
without  taking  any  exception  to  what  the  committee 
had  done,  declares  his  readiness  to  hinder  the  inculca- 
tion of  any  doctrine,  or  introduction  of  any  practice, 
come  from  what  quarter  it  may,  not  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  Liturgy  of  our  church ;  and  also  ex- 
presses his  conviction,  that  the  only  confession  au- 
thorized by  that  church  is  that  referred  to  by  the  ex- 
hortation in  the  Communion  Office.  And  now  in  his 
Pastoral  (page  60,)  he  treats  it  as  a  great  mistake  to 
suppose  that  in  his  Charge  he  gave  up  any  of  his  pre- 
vious views  and  teachings,  and  declares  in  a  note  at 
the  end  of  the  Pastoral,  his  adherence  to  the  substance 
of  the  Charge  as  his  belief  always  and  still.  What, 
then,  did  the  Bishop  mean  by  his  Charge?  What  is 
the  substance  to  which  he  adheres,  and  the  form 
which  he  abandons?  He  knew  that  the  report  was 
aimed  at  him;  that  the  excitements  referred  to  grew 
out  of  his  teaching,  and  out  of  practices  allowed  by 
him.  To  these,  therefore,  his  Charge  must  be  under- 
stood by  the  Convention  to  refer,  and  to  pledge  him 
to  do  something  to  moderate  the  excitements  and  re- 
move the  cause  of  complaint.  And  did  not  the  Bishop 
know  that  the  Charge  would  be  so  understood  by  the 
Convention?  would  be,  must  be  understood  as  giving 


80  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

up  some  of  his  previous  views  and  teachings?  Did  he 
not  intend  it  to  be  so  understood  by  them?  Now,  is 
not  a  promise  a  pledge,  an  assurance,  binding  in  that 
sense  in  which  he  who  makes  it  knows  or  supposes  it 
will  be  understood  by  him  to  whom  it  is  made? 
Surely  the  Bishop  did  not — it  cannot  be  believed  that 
he  did — intend  to  mislead  the  Convention,  through  a 
concealed  meaning  not  discoverable  by  them,  and  to 
send  the  members  home,  trusting  to  a  promise,  a 
pledge,  an  assurance,  which  he  never  designed  to  re- 
deem in  the  sense  in  which  he  knew  they  understood 
it?  Can  the  Bishop  give — he  has  not  yet  given — 
any  explanation  of  this  matter?  But,  further,  did  not 
the  Bishop  know  there  was  an  excited  state  of  feeling 
in  the  Convention?  Was  not  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee shown  to  him  before  his  illness,  as  furnishing  a 
mode  by  which  the  subject  might  be  brought  before 
that  body,  and  enabling  him,  by  some  timely  interposi- 
tion, to  prevent  an  outbreak  amongst  its  members? 
Did  he  not  read  it  before  its  presentation?  Did  he 
express  the  slightest  dissatisfaction  with  it?  On  the" 
contrary,  did  he  not  make  it  a  condition  on  which  his 
Charge  should  be  read  to  the  Convention,  that  the  re- 
port should  not  be  altered  in  the  least?  Now,  these 
things  are  believed  in  the  Diocese,  upon  the  authority 
of  Presbyters  who  were  there,  and  were  members  of 
the  committee,  and,  if  true,  must  we  not  conclude 
that  the  Bishop,  at  that  time,  did  not  think  the  re- 
port involved  any  error  of  principle,  or  excess  of  au- 
thority, and  that  this  vice  in  it  has  been  discovered  by 
his  subsequent  investigations  at  Valle  Crucis? 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  Sf\ 

Again ;  a  preamble  and  resolution  were  offered  to  the 
Convention,  the  former  of  which,  after  referring  to  the 
report  of  the  committee,  stating  the  opinions  that  the 
church  no  where  requires  the  practice  of  auricular  con- 
fession and  private  absolution,  and,  quoting  an  opinion 
of  Bishop  Hobart  upon  that  practice,  expresses  the  great 
satisfaction  with  which  the  Convention  had  heard  the 
Bishop's  Charge;  and  the  resolution  directs  the  pub- 
lication of  a  thousand  copies  of  the  report,  the  Charge, 
and  the  preamble,  for  distribution.  To  this  proceed- 
ing the  Bishop  in  his  Pastoral  objects,  (page  11,)  de- 
claring the  preamble  to  strike,  "in  principle,  at  the 
very  foundations  of  truth  and  order."  Now,  this  pre- 
amble was  first  introduced  with  the  resolution  in  a 
different  form  from  that  in  which  it  appears  on  the 
Journal,  and  was  in  that  form  adopted.  At  a  subse- 
quent day  it  was  altered  to  what  it  now  is.  Why 
was  this  done?  Was  it  not  at  the  instance  of  the 
Bishop?  Was  not  the  preamble  seen  by  him — ob- 
jected to  by  him — every  amendment  which  he  sug- 
gested adopted,  and  did  he  not  declare  himself  satis- 
fied with  it  in  its  corrected  form?  Did  not  the  Con- 
vention, anxious  to  avoid  giving  him  offence,  or  pain, 
substitute  the  amended  for  the  original  preamble? 
And  is  not  the  preamble,  as  it  now  stands  on  the 
Journal,  word  for  word  what  the  Bishop's  amend- 
ment made  it?  If  this  be  so,  how  can  the  Bishop  feel 
authorized,  after  so  far  sanctioning  what  was  done, 
now  to  denounce  this  preamble  in  such  strong  and  al- 
most bitter  terms?     Why  did  he  not,  at  the  time, 


82  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

make  known  to  the  Convention  his  objections  to  the 
proceedings,  if  he  then  entertained  them? 

His  health,  he  says,  was  feeble ;  but  would  it  have 
required  a  greater  exertion  of  mind  to  dictate  a  re- 
monstrance to  the  Convention,  than  was  necessary 
to  suggest  amendments  of  the  preamble?  And  why 
should  he  desire  to  alter  the  form  of  that  which  he 
deemed  altogether  bad  in  substance,  and  grossly  vicious 
in  principle  ? 

He  who  without  prejudice  or  excitement  shall  ex- 
amine the  proceedings  of  the  Salisbury  Convention, 
will  be  struck  with  their  moderation  and  forbearance ; 
an  anxiety  at  once  to  vindicate  the  Church  from  all 
suspicion  of  favouring  Romish  doctrine  or  practice, 
and  an  extreme  care  to  avoid  doing  any  thing  which 
might  hurt  the  official  dignity,  or  wound  the  personal 
feelings  of  the  Bishop ;  and  will  find  himself  as  much 
at  a  loss  to  discover  in  these  proceedings  any  assump- 
tion of  authority,  or  violation  of  principle,  as  to  find 
the  Bishop's  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  priestly  abso- 
lution, in  the  Articles  and  Liturgy  of  the  Church. 

The  Bishop  refers  to  the  imperfect  representation 
of  the*diocese  in  the  Convention,  there  being  but  thir- 
teen out  of  the  forty-eight  parishes  assessed,  which  had 
delegates  present.  Forty-eight  parishes  assessed!  and 
what  evidence  does  this  furnish  of  the  sense  of  the 
Church?  Of  these  forty-eight,  twenty-four  are  as- 
s'  sse  1  for  the  Bishop's  salary  and  contingent  fund,  at 
sums  of  fifteen  dollars  and  under,  being,  with  one  or 
two  exceptions,  mere  missionary  stations,  where  the 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL   LETTER.  83 

Church  is  seeking  to  gain  a  foothold.  Only  twenty- 
eight  parishes  chose  delegates,  and  thirteen  of  these 
were  represented ;  a  representation  quite  equal  to  that 
found  generally  in  attendance  on  our  Diocesan  Conven- 
tions. There  were  present,  twenty-two  clergymen, 
out  of  thirty-eight  entitled  to  seats,  and  four  of  the 
sixteen  absentees  are  known  to  me  to  have  been  totally 
opposed  to  the  Bishop's  doctrine  and  proceedings. 
But  what  w7ould  the  Bishop  imply?  that  the  lay  dele- 
gates did  not  present  a  true  exhibition  of  the  sense  of 
the  diocese?  that  any  unrepresented  parish  was  pre- 
pared to  support  his  doctrine?  Let  him  not  be  de- 
ceived. He  will  not  hear  at  Valle  Crucis  the  voice 
of  the  laymen  of  his  charge.  Never,  he  may  be 
assured,  were  any  people  more  united,  than  are  we 
in  all  sections  and  parishes  of  the  diocese.  Had  the 
representation  in  the  Convention  been  greater,  the 
number  voting  would  indeed  have  been  increased,  but 
the  unanimity  wTould  have  been  the  same. 

So  much  for  the  doings  in  the  Salisbury  Convention, 
to  which  the  Bishop  objects. 

But  in  order  to  understand  fully  the  grounds  of  agi- 
tation and  alarm  which  have  existed,  and  do  exist  in 
the  Diocese,  and  to  ascertain  whether  we  have  since 
the  publication  of  the  Bishop's  last  Pastoral,  less  or 
more  reason  for  that  agitation  and  alarm,  than  we  had 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  we  must  consider 
the  claim  set  up  by  the  Bishop  to  high  and  overruling 
authority  in  his  Diocese. 

In  commencing    the  discussion  upon  his  own  au- 


S4  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

thority,  he  states  that  he  did  not  covet  the  office,  that 
it  was  in  fact  forced  upon  him  against  his  will,  and  in 
a  note  that  he  was  "unanimously  elected  after  re- 
peated unsuccessful  trials  to  induce  others  to  accept." 
(page  19.)  To  what  purpose  this  is  alleged  I  do  not 
perceive,  nor  what  connexion  it  has  with. his  Episco- 
pal powers,  but  the  statement  is  somewhat  inaccurate, 
and  therefore  should  be  corrected.  The  facts  as  to 
his  election,  I  believe,  are  these ;  so  at  least  they  were, 
on  all  hands,  understood  to  be,  at  the  time  and  place 
when  and  where  the  election  was  made.  In  the  meet- 
ing of  the  clergy  to  agree  on  a  person  to  be  nomi- 
nated, two  highly  respectable  presbyters  were  named. 
Between  them  the  clergy  were  divided,  and  being  un- 
willing to  make  a  nomination  other  than  unanimous, 
it  was  suggested  by  one  of  their  number  that  Mr. 
Ives,  known  only,  it  is  believed,  to  the  clergyman  who 
named  him,  should  be  selected.  This  suggestion 
was  adopted,  but,  after  all,  the  vote  of  the  clergy  in 
Convention  was  not  unanimous,  for  one  Presbyter  voted 
against  the  nomination.  The  statement  that  repeated 
unsuccessful  trials  had  been  made  to  induce  others  to 
accept,  is,  I  think,  certainly  incorrect.  It  was  un- 
derstood at  the  time,  that  both  the  Presbyters  above 
referred  to,  had  been  previously  addressed  upon  the 
subject,  and  there  was  no  reason  to  doubt  that  either 
wTould  have  accepted.  The  office  may  have  been 
"forced  upon  the  Bishop  against  his  will,"  though  we 
knew  not  and  heard  not  at  the  time  of  any  compul- 
sion ;  but  surely  his  coming  against  his  will  to  take 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  85 

charge  of  us  can  make  no  difference  in  his  Episcopal 
powers.  The  "nolo  Episcopari,"  which  in  the  olden 
time  was  often  heard,  and  sometimes  silenced  by  a 
little  gentle  coercion,  was  never  thought  to  confer  ad- 
ditional authority  upon  the  reluctant  Prelate.  We 
may,  therefore,  dismiss  this  matter,  and  proceed  to 
consider  the  extent  of  the  Bishop's  powers,  and  the 
validity  of  his  claims  upon  the  true  grounds  on  which 
these  rest.  The  Bishop  asserts  for  himself  a  control- 
ling authority  over  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship, 
within  his  diocese,  and  this  authority  I  understand 
him  to  claim  as  intrusted  by  Almighty  God  to  him 
alone:  (page  19,)  he  declares  himself  "alone  respon- 
sible to  the  church  at  large  for  its  doctrine,  discipline, 
and  worship."  Now,  if  there  be  in  the  diocese  any 
authority  superior  to,  or  co-ordinate  with  his,  any  au- 
thority which,  in  any  case,  may  resist  his  judgment, 
or  in  any  respect  act  independently  of  his  will  regard- 
ing doctrine,  discipline,  or  worship,  it  is  plain  that 
he  cannot  be  "alone  responsible"  therefor:  and  there- 
fore it  follows  that  the  authority  claimed  by  him,  as  it 
admits  no  superior,  no  co-ordinate,  but  demands  sub- 
mission from  all  within  his  diocese  without  exception 
of  person  or  case,  must  of  necessity  be  supreme  and 
absolute.  Now  by  what  process  does  the  Bishop  vin- 
dicate this  claim,  and  centre  in  himself  the  whole  un- 
divided authority  over  religion  within  his  diocese  ?  He 
first  excludes  from  any  the  least  show  of  judgment 
over  faith,  doctrine,  or  discipline,  the  entire  body  of  the 
laity,  whether  considered  as  individuals,  congregations, 
8 


86  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

or  delegates  in  Convention — laymen  with  their  "le- 
prous hands"  unfit  to  be  lifted  to  heaven  with  cries 
for  mercy,  being  of  course  unworthy  to  touch  the  ark 
of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship.  For  this  exclu- 
sion he  relies  upon  the  example  of  the  English  church, 
citing,  in  a  note,  (page  17,)  Bishop  Overall,  to  show 
that,  according  to  her  divines,  "the  right  of  definite 
judgment  in  matters  of  faith  is  to  be  given  to  synods 
of  bishops  and  other  learned  ministers  of  the  church." 
Now,  whatever  may  be  held  as  matter  of  theory  by 
Bishop  Overall  or  any  other  English  divine,  what  is 
and  ever  has  been  the  undoubted  matter  of  fact  as  to 
the  condition  of  the  English  reformed  church?  Not 
one  part  of  her  service — not  one  of  her  Articles  of  Re- 
ligion— nothing  that  belongs  to  her  as  a  church,  has 
been  undertaken,  completed,  or  established  by  the  sole 
authority  of  her  bishops  and  clergy.  The  first  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments in  the  time  of  King  Edward,  was  set  forth  "by 
the  common  agreement  and  full  consent  both  of  the 
Parliament  and  the  Convocations  of  Canterbury  and 
York!"  This  book  was  revised  in  the  reigns  of  Eli- 
zabeth and  James  I.  by  commissioners  appointed  by 
those  sovereigns  respectively,  and  the  last  revision,  in 
Charles  II. 's  time,  was  approved  by  Convocations,  and 
confirmed  by  Parliament.  In  fact  and  in  law  the 
whole  legislation  of  the  church  is  subject  to  the  con- 
trol of  the  civil  power.  Convocation  cannot  assemble 
without  the  king's  writ,  and  when  assembled  cannot 
deliberate  without  his  license,  nor  are  the  lay  members 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  87 

of  the  church  bound  by  any  caucus  which  have  not 
received  the  sanction  of  Parliament.     And  what  is 
well  worthy  of  remark  in  this  connexion  is,  that  the 
English  Prayer  Book  contains  four  distinct  forms  of 
prayer,  with  the  order  of  King  George  the  III.,  signi- 
fying his  "  will  and  pleasure "  that  they  should  be 
"  annexed  to  the  book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Liturgy 
of  the  church  of  England,"  and  on  the  authority  of 
this  royal  order,  have  these  forms  held  a  place  in  the 
English  Prayer  Book  for  more  than  eighty  years. 
English  laymen  are  bound  by  nothing  of  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, or  worship,  which  has  not  received  the  appro- 
bation of  their  representatives  in  Parliament,  unless 
the  four  forms  of  prayer  above  mentioned  may  be 
deemed  an  exception,  and  to  these  neither  Convocation 
nor  Parliament  was  asked  to  assent.     But  if  English 
laymen  were  otherwise   situated,   what  would    that 
prove  as  to  the  condition  of  lay  members  of  our  church 
in  what  the  Bishop  justly  calls  "  this  land  of  freedom?" 
Why,  just  nothing  at  all!     The  venerable  Bishop 
White  maintained  the  right  of  laymen  to  representa- 
tion in  our  church  assemblies ;  first,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  most  agreeable  to  the  earliest  practice  of  the 
primitive  church :  secondly,  because  it  was  necessary 
here  as  an  equivalent  for  the  power  of  Parliament 
over  church  legislation  in  England,  and  thirdly,  be- 
cause our  laity  would  not  submit  to  be  bound  by  laws 
adopted   without   their  consent.     Now  what  would 
Jewell  have  thought  of  the  introduction  of  laymen 
into  ecclesiastical  assemblies  ?    Would  he  have  deemed 


88  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

it  wrong,  injurious  to  religion,  or  inconsistent  with 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  church?  Certainly  he 
would  not;  for  that  godly  and  most  learned  man  main- 
tains the  right  of  laymen  to  have  a  voice  in  church  af- 
fairs, and  to  deliberate  and  determine  on  matters  of 
faith.  (Works,  vol.  VI.,  page  225  to  230,  and  426 
to  428.)  Besides  others,  he  quotes  Pope  Nicholas, 
who,  writing  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  admits  the  pre- 
sence of  former  Emperors  in  Councils  "  when  matter 
was  moved  touching  the  faith,"  and  assigns  the  reason 
in  these  words — "  For  faith  is  universal  and  common 
to  all,  and  pertaineth  not  only  unto  priests,  but  also 
unto  laymen,  and  generally  and  thoroughly  to  all 
Christians :"  and  St.  Cyprian  saying,  "From  my  first 
entering  into  the  bishopric,  I  have  determined  to  do 
nothing  by  mine  own  authority  without  your  advice, 
(being  the  priests  and  deacons,)  and  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  people  ;"  and  Jewell  affirms  that  "the  lay 
Prince  in  Council  hath  had  authority  not  only  to  con- 
sent and  agree  unto  others,  but  also  to  define  and  de- 
termine, and  that  in  cases  of  religion,  as  by  many  evi- 
dent examples  may  appear."  This  lay  right  will  of 
course  be  modified  as  to  the  manner  of  its  exercise  by 
the  civil  constitutions  of  different  countries.  Where 
state  and  church  are  united,  it  will  be  exercised  b}r 
the  supreme  legislative  power,  whether  vested  in  a 
king,  in  a  parliament,  or  elsewhere.  Where,  as  with 
us,  church  and  state  are  not  united,  we,  following  the 
genius  of  our  civil  institutions,  exert  it  through  repre- 
sentatives chosen  by  the  laity  to  protect  their  rights, 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  89 

and  disclose  their  judgment.  Accordingly  we  find,  in 
fact,  that  our  Articles  of  Religion  were  established,  and 
our  Liturgy  set  forth,  not  by  bishops  alone,  or  by 
bishops  and  clergy,  but  by  "the  bishops,  clergy,  and 
laity"  of  the  church,  as  any  one  who  shall  examine 
the  Journals  of  the  General  Convention,  and  the  ratifi- 
cations in  our  Prayer  Book  will  perceive;  and  the  first 
Constitution  of  the  church  in  the  Un  ted  SU.tes  was 
formed  by  a  Convention  of  clergy  and  laity,  without 
the  authority  or  presence  of  any  bishop.  How  then 
stands  the  question  of  lay  right?  Our  whole  doctrine, 
discipline,  worship,  and  legislation,  have  been  esta- 
blished, set  forth,  enacted  by  the  laity  as  well  as  and 
equally  with  the  bishops  and  clergy.  No  alteration 
can  be  made  in  them  or  any  of  them  by  the  united 
voice  of  all  the  bishops  and  clergy,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  laity  freely  given.  The  authority  is  co- 
ordinate and  co-equal;  how  then  shall  it  be  said  that 
the  laity  are  excluded  from  all  right  of  judgment  in 
regard  to  those  things  which  by  their  co-operation  and 
consent  were  established,  and  without  their  co-opera- 
tion and  consent  cannot,  in  the  least  degree,  be  altered. 
Such  an  exclusion  is  inconsistent  at  once  with  our 
ecclesiastical  constitution  and  with  any  supposition  of 
wisdom  in  the  Church.  Shall  we  say  that  the  laity 
in  the  house  of  clerical  and  lay  delegates,  are  by  the 
constitution  empowered  jointly  and  equally  with  the 
clergy  to  consider,  debate,  define,  decide,  and  direct  as 
to  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship — that  without  them, 
nothing  in  respect  to  either  has  been,  or  can  be,  au« 

a* 


90 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF 


thoritatively  defined,  decided,  or  directed;  and  yet, 
th?t  they  have  no  right  to  consider,  to  weigh,  to  judge 
of,  what  is  taught  respecting  doctrine,  discipline,  or 
wcrship?  If  we  say  so,  why?  Not  because  they 
ought  not,  in  the  judgment  of  the  church,  to  be  intrust- 
ed with  power,  for  that  is  by  her  fully  conferred.  Shall 
we  then  say  that  the  church  presumes  them  incapable 
from  want  of  skill  or  integrity  to  do  that  wisely  and 
honestly,  upon  whom,  nevertheless,  she  confers  the 
power  of  doing  it?  Are  not  the  laity  to  prepare  them- 
selves, as  well  as  they  can,  to  understand  the  liturgy 
of  the  church  as  a  body  of  doctrine,  as  well  as  a  form 
of  prayer  and  a  rule  of  discipline?  Or  are  their  minds 
to  be  but  blank  sheets  of  paper  on  which  the  Bishop 
is,  with  his  pastoral  pen,  to  write,  expunge,  and  re- 
write what  he  pleases?  When  they  assemble  in  Gene- 
ral Convention  with  the  clergy,  and  a  question  is  moved, 
as  to  doctrine,  discipline,  or  worship,  on  which  the 
church  empowers  and  expects  them  to  decide,  if  al- 
ready informed,  may  they  not  act  upon  that  informa- 
tion? if  not  informed,  may  they  not  listen  to  the 
opinions  of  others,  and  follow  that  which  best  com- 
mends itself  to  their  judgment?  or  must  they,  in  either 
case,  refer  to  their  Bishop  for  that  decision  which  he 
judges  proper  to  be  made?  It  is  manifest  that  the 
church  designed  no  such  mockery,  as  would  be  the 
power  to  decide  without  the  right  to  consider  and  to 
judge — that  she  holds  no  such  low  opinion  of  her  laity 
as  this  would  imply;  but  when  she  confers  the  power, 
she  supposes  the  capacity  to  use  it  wisely,  the  right 


BISHOP  IVES*  PASTORAL  LETTER.  91 

to  use  it  freely,  and  an  interest  in  its  wise  antl/ree  use 
corresponding  with  that  of  her  Bishops  and  clergy. 
The  Pastoral  (p.  17,)  alleges  as  a  "safe  maxim"  of 
the  church,  that  "  she  gives  no  authority  where  she 
exacts  no  responsibility"  and  argues  that  as  she  ex- 
acts no  responsibility  from  the  laity,  touching  doctrine, 
discipline,  or  worship,  she  "precludes  the  judgment  of 
the  laity  from  all  questions  involving  these  things" 
and  further,  because  she  prescribes  to  a"  Diocesan  Con- 
vention, as  such,  no  duty,  takes  no  pledge  of  fidelity, 
and  exacts  no  responsibility,"  touching  these  subjects, 
therefore  a  Diocesan  Convention  is,  by  the  same  safe 
maxim,  likewise  excluded.  Where  the  Bishop  found 
this  "  maxim  "  of  the  church,  I  do  not  know;  but  let 
that  pass,  and  let  us  assume  it  to  be  her  maxim:  what 
follows?  why  clearly,  if  the  Bishop's  reasoning  be  just, 
this  follows :  that  not  only  her  laity,  not  only  her  Dio- 
cesan Convention,  a.?  such,  but  her  Bishops,  clergy,  and 
laity  in  General  Convention  assembled  are,  by  her,  pre- 
cluded from  all  judgment  in  questions  of  doctrine,  disci- 
pline, and  worship.  For  what  pledges  does  the  church 
take,  what  responsibility  does  she  exact  from  clerical 
and  lay  delegates,  as  such?  What  from  the  House  of 
Bishops,  as  such?  Why,  just  none  at  all.  Then  the 
result  I  have  stated  is,  upon  the  maxims  quoted  and 
applied  by  the  Bishop,  an  inevitable  conclusion.  Thus : 
where  the  church  takes  no  pledge  and  exacts  no  re- 
sponsibility, she  gives  no  authority.  But  she  takes 
no  pledge  and  exacts  no  responsibility  respecting  doc- 
trine, discipline,  or  worship,  from  the  Bishops,  clergy. 


92  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

or  laity,  as  members  of  a  General  Convention.  There- 
fore, she  gives  to  them,  as  such  members,  no  authority 
over  these  things.  But  a  general  convention,  as  we 
know,  has  such  authority;  and,  therefore,  the  Bishop's 
argument,  by  proving  too  much,  is  seen  to  prove  no- 
thing; and,  therefore,  also,  the  maxim  quoted  is  not 
that  of  the  church,  or  else  the  Bishop  has  applied  it  in 
a  manner  not  designed  by  her. 

The  Bishop,  I  think,  has  confounded  two  things, 
which  are  distinct  and  different  from  each  other.  The 
ministerial  powers  confided  by  the  church — for  exam- 
ple, to  preach,  to  celebrate  the  sacraments,  and  admi- 
nister discipline — are  to  be  executed  not  at  the  discre- 
tion and  according  to  the  will  of  the  ministers,  but  ac- 
cording to  her  law  and  her  doctrine;  therefore,  she 
"  takes  a  pledge"  that  his  ministrations  shall  be  accord- 
ing to  her  articles  of  religion,  her  forms  of  worship, 
and  her  rules  of  discipline — and  for  a  breach  of  this 
pledge  she  "  exacts  a  responsibility."  But  what 
pledge,  I  pray,  could  she  take,  what  responsibility 
exact,  from  a  member  of  the  General  Convention,  as 
such,  he  having,  in  that  character,  no  ministerial  func- 
tion to  discharge?  Shall  it  be  a  pledge  that  he  will 
not  propose  or  support  a  repeal  of  any  of  her  canons — 
that  he  will  not  agree  to  any  purposed  alteration  of 
her  rubrics,  prayers,  or  articles?  .  And  suppose  such 
pledge  given,  what  responsibility  can  the  church  exact 
in  case  of  its  violation?  Such  a  pledge  would  involve 
at  once  the  grossest  absurdity  and  highest  inconve- 
nience— it  would  fix  an  unalterable  character  upon  the 


BrSIIOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  93 

whole  legislation  of  the  church,  and  make  the  triennial 
meetings  of  the  Convention  an  idle  show.  Yet  this  is 
the  only  pledge  which  can  be  imagined  for  a  member 
of  the  General  Convention.  Every  layman,  and  no  less 
every  clergyman  and  every  Bishop,  is  bound  by  what- 
ever the  church  has  established,  until  altered  by  com- 
petent authority ;  but  neither  is  precluded  from  seek- 
ing to  obtain  such  alteration  by  constitutional  means, 
or  from  forming  and  expressing  an  opinion  that  any 
alteration  ought  to  be  made;  and,  by  consequence,  nei- 
ther is  precluded  from  examining  what  is  the  interpre- 
tation of  any  part  of  the  law  or  doctrine  of  the  church, 
adopted  by  her  ministers — to  the  end,  that  such  inter- 
pretation, if  erroneous,  may,  by  proper  means,  be  dis- 
allowed— or  if  right,  may  be  supported — or  that  if  the 
thing,  rightly  interpreted,  be  in  itself  improper,  it  may 
be  abolished.  The  error  runs  through  the  Bishop's 
whole  argument,  of  confounding  ministerial  powers, 
under  the  law,  with  legislative  powers  over  the  law. 
In  regard  to  the  former,  a  particular  pledge  is  properly 
required — in  regard  to  the  latter,  it  would  be  mischiev- 
ous and  absurd.  Apart  from  their  ministerial  func- 
tions, Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  are  under  the 
same  pledge  as  the  laity, — the  baptismal  vow, — and 
to  that,  and  that  only,  the  church  trusts  for  fidelity  to 
her  interests  in  the  exercise  of  all  powers  confided  to 
them,  which  belong  not  to  their  ministerial  character; 
and  her  delegates  are  under  no  responsibility,  except 
to  God  and  their  constituents.  Indeed,  upon  a  careful 
review  of  our  whole  ecclesiastical  system,  it  will  aj> 


94 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF 


pear  that  the  church  has  been  less  influenced  by  the 
maxims  quoted  by  the  Bishop  than  by  a  rule  com- 
mended by  Jewell,  "  as  agreeable  to  reason : "  that 
what  toucheth  all,  must  be  allowed  by  all. 

But  the  Bishop  having  precluded  all  judgments  of 
the  laity,  precludes  also  the  judgments  of  the  clergy 
in  regard  to  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship.  It  is 
true  that  where  he  speaks  of  the  sacred  instrumentality 
in  the  Diocese,  and  elsewhere  in  the  Pastoral,  he 
seems  to  allow  somewhat  to  the  clergy;  yet  when  he 
comes  to  treat  of  his  own  authority  as  Bishop,  he 
claims  this  whole  matter,  as  confided  to  him  alone  by 
Almighty  God;  for  it  he  holds  himself  alone  respon- 
sible, and,  therefore,  necessarily  claims,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  power  supreme  and  absolute  within  his  Diocese. 
He  denies  to  the  clergy  assembled  in  Convention  and 
acting  either  with  or  without  their  lay  brethren,  any 
authority  over  these  matters — any  right  to  pronounce 
their  judgment  upon  f  ike  doctrines,  vicious  practices, 
or  other  evils  in  the  Diocese,  or  even  to  declare  the 
existence  of  such  things,  unless  they  appear  in  the 
parochial' rep :>rtf,  after  these  have  le?n  presented  to 
him,  expurgated  by  him,  and  in  such  form,  as  he 
pleases,  submitted  to  the  Convention.  He  says,  indeed, 
that  they  may  talk  to  him  on  such  subjects,  and  even 
venture  to  expostulate  with  him;  but  if  he  should, 
notwithstanding,  persevere  in  disseminating  even  the 
most  heretical  doctrines — Socinianism,  for  instance — or 
in  approving  the  u.se  of  the  most  objectionable  prayers 
— for  example,  prayers  to  the  Virgin  or  the  Saints — he 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  95 

warns  them  against  any  attempt,  singly  or  by  con- 
cert, "to  thwart  his  views" — "to  embarrass  his 
labours"— or  "to  intimidate  him,"  by  what  he  calls 
"unauthorized,  oppressive,  and  irresponsible  Conven- 
tional acts," — warns  them  against  such  an  attempt, 
under  the  penalty  of  being  brought  to  trial  for  the 
violation  of  a  Canon  of  Chalcedon!  Their  only 
course,  under  such  circumstances,  is  to  sit  by,  fold 
their  hands,  and  witness  the  preaching  of  heresy,  the 
introduction  of  Romish  prayers,  and  the  degradation 
of  the  church,  until  they  can  get  the  Convention  to  pre- 
sent, and  the  house  of  Bishops  to  try,  convict,  and  de- 
grade the  Bishop ;  and  even  this  remedy,  it  seems, 
they  hold  subject  to  the  will  of  the  Bishop ;  for,  if  the 
proposal  to  impeach  be  introduced,  he  may,  if  he  thinks 
proper,  refuse  as  presiding  officer  to  put  the  question 
to  the  Convention !  Now,  what  material  difference  is 
there  between  what  is  here  claimed  for  himself  by  the 
Bishop,  and  what  is  claimed  by  ultra-Romish  writers 
for  the  Pope?  Jewell  thus  states  their  claim:  "That 
which  the  Pope  approves  or  disapproves,  we  ought  to 
approve  or  disapprove  likewise."  And  again:  "It  is 
not  lawful  for  any  man  to  disallow  that  which  the 
Pope  approves.  I  know  not  what  parasite  it  is,  who 
shamelessly  saith,  that  '  though  all  the  world  should 
be  of  one  opinion  against  the  Pope,  yet  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  Pope's  opinion  must  be  maintained.5 "  (Let- 
ter to  Scipio  on  the  Council  of  Trent.)  The  differ- 
ence in  the  two  cases  is  found  only  in  the  extent  of 
the  Dioceses;  that  of  the  Pope  is  the  World,  that  of 


96  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

our  Bishop  is  only  North  Carolina.  Within  his  Dio- 
cese each  is  supreme  over  doctrine,  discipline  and  wor- 
ship, and  "none  must  disallow  what  he  approves." 
It  is  true,  the  Bishop  admits  he  may  be  tried  and  de- 
posed ;  but,  that  is  by  an  authority  exterior  to  his  Di- 
ocese. This  the  Pope  denies  of  himself;  for  there  can 
be  no  authority  exterior  to  a  Diocese  which  includes 
the  whole  world.  Practically,  this  difference  is  not 
much,  for  we  know  that  Popes  have,  in  fact,  been 
sometimes,  though  rarely,  deposed,  and  we  have  no 
reason  to  think  that  the  deposition  of  a  Bishop  will 
be  of  easy  accomplishment. 

The  Bishop's  objection  to  the  consideration  of  doc- 
trine, discipline  and  worship,  by  a  Diocesan  Conven- 
tion, rests  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  origin  of  our 
ecclesiastical  system.  This  system  is  well  and  fully 
explained  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  in  his  book  on  the 
"  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Church,"  (page  41  to 
58,)  from  which,  and  from  Bishop  White's  Memoirs, 
it  is  evident  that,  after  the  revolution,  the  churches 
in  the  several  States  were  independent  churches,  having 
each  in  itself  full  power  over  doctrine,  discipline  and 
worship;  that  these,  acting  through  conventions  of  lay 
and  clerical  members,  chose  delegates  to  meet  together 
and  form  a  union  of  the  whole  into  one  national  church ; 
that  the  entire  power  of  the  General  Convention  is  de- 
rived from  the  union  of  the  several  churches  thus 
formed ;  and,  by  necessary  consequence,  all  powers 
not  by  them  vested  in  the  General  Convention,  remain 
in  the  churches  of  the  several  Dioceses.     Now,  these 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  97 

churches  once  had  all  power.     By  what  grant  have 
they  parted  with  it  all  and  become  so  dependent  upon 
the  General  Convention,  that  an  authority  from  that 
body  must  be  shown  to  enable  them  to  exercise  any 
power?     I  submit  that  this  is  not  the  situation  of  these 
Diocesan  churches.     On  the  contrary,  that  their  Con- 
ventions can  exercise  every  power  which  is  not  ex- 
pressly, or  by  implication,  granted  to  the  General  Con- 
vention or  forbidden  to  them  by  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  in  the  United  States.     Hence,  the  Conven- 
tion of  each  Diocese  has  a  duty  to  discharge  in  watch- 
ing over  faith,  worship  and  discipline,  within  its  bounds ; 
a  right  to  declare  its  opinion  whether  there  has  been 
in  any  one.  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  an  encroachment 
upon  the  Articles  or  Liturgy  of  the  church,  and  a 
power  to  pass  Canons  (not  inconsistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution and  Canons  of  the  church,)  for  giving  to  their 
opinion  the  force  of  law ;  and  when  the  Bishop  an- 
nounces, in  his  last  Pastoral,  that,  had  he  been  present 
in  the  Convention,  he  would,  as  presiding  officer  of  that 
body,  have  refused  to  put  the  question  upon  the  pre- 
amble and  resolution  to  which  he  objects ;  he  seems  to 
arrogate  to  himself  an  absolute  power  over  the  Con- 
vention.    As  presiding  officer  he  is  bound  to  submit 
to  the  judgment  of  the  body,  so  far  as  to  allow  it  to 
act,  whatever  weight  he,  as  Bishop*  may  give  to  the 
action  when  completed.     Besides,  it  should  be  recol- 
lected, that  his  being  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Con- 
vention depends  solely  on  a  provision  in  the  Diocesan 
Constitution,  and  such  a  dictation,  as  he  threatens, 
9 


yo  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

once  attempted  and  persevered  in,  might  compel  the 
Diocese,  in  order  to  protect  its  own  rights,  so  to  alter 
that  Constitution,  as  to  give  the  Convention  another 
presiding  officer. 

The  Bishop  having  quoted,  as  a  warning  to  the 
Clergy,  a  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  gives  a 
significant  hint  to  the  laity,  that  for  them,  also,  there 
are  other  Canons — whether  of  Chalcedon  he  does  not 
tell  us — besides  those  of  the  American  Church,  to 
which  they  may  be  held  amenable.  For  he  says, 
(page  17^)  "If,  in  a  moral  sense,  they  be  not  open  and 
notorious  evil  doers,  or  have  not  done  any  wrong  to 
their  neighbour  by  word  or  deed,  there  is  no  canoni- 
cal right  except  we  go  beyond  the  canon  law  of  the 
American  Church,  to  which  some  desire  to  restrict 
us,  even  to  repel  them  from  the  Holy  Communion." 
Go  beyond  the  canon  law  of  our  own  church !  To 
which  some  desire  to  restrict  us !  Why,  who  ever 
heard  of  a  right  in  any  church  to  exercise  discipline 
beyond  the  law  of  that  church  ?  Who,  but  the  Bishop, 
sets  up  a  right  to  go  beyond  that  law?  But  this 
claim  is  a  just  and  natural  sequence  of  the  sole  au- 
thority to  judge  of  doctrine,  discipline  and  worship,  in 
the  Diocese.  The  Bishop  does  not  desire  to  repeal 
any  part  of  the  legislation  of  the  church,  or  to  strike 
out  any  thing  from  her  Articles  and  Liturgy ;  but  only 
claims,  within  his  Diocese,  the  sole  right  of  interpre- 
tation thereof,  and  of  making  additions  thereto ! 

Chillingworth,  in  his  immortal  work,  has  well  said, 
"He  that  would  assume   an  absolute  lordship   and 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  99 

tyranny  over  any  people,  need  not  put  himself  to  the 
trouble  and  difficulty  of  abrogating  and  disannul^ 
ling  the  laws,  made  to  maintain  the  common  liberty; 
for  he  may  frustrate  their  intent  and  compass  his  own 
design  as  well,  if  he  can  get  the  power  and  authority 
to  interpret  them  as  he  pleases,  and  add  to  them  what 
he  pleases,  and  to  have  his  interpretations  and  addi?- 
tions  stand  for  laws."  Here  is  described  at  once  the 
power  claimed  by  the  Bishop,  its  necessary  tendency, 
and  probable  consequence.  He  has  the  sole  responsi- 
bility for,  and  sole  authority  over  the  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, and  worship  of  the  church,  within  his  Diocese ; 
he  is  the  supreme  interpreter  of  the  Articles  and 
Liturgy ;  can  add  to  her  symbols  of  faith  a  creed  which 
she  has  rejected,  and  declare  it  heresy  to  deny  any 
part  thereof;  to  her  discipline,  an  absolution  which 
she  has  formally  expunged ;  to  her  clerical  institution, 
a  monastic  order,  surrounding  himself  by  persons, 
bound  to  him  by  vpws  no  where  authorized  by  the 
church  to  be  made  or  taken ;  may  allow  the  reserva- 
tion of  the  consecrated  elements,  in  defiance  of  her  ru- 
bric, which  commands  that  they  shall  be  immediately 
eaten  and  drunk;  may  send  a  penitentiary  through  the 
parishes  to  hear  confessions,  and  "prescribe  the  rules 
and  measures  of  penance,"  although  the  church  knows 
no  such  officer,  and  allows  no  such  function ;  may  de=- 
clare  the  church  in  schism,  and  dissuade  members  of 
another  communion  from  entering  hers ;  may,  if  he 
choose,  in  any  thing  and  every  thing,  falsify  the  doc- 
trine and  Romanize  the  worship  of,  the  church,  and 


100  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

a  Diocesan  Convention,  duly  assembled,  has  no  right 
to  warn  the  Diocese  against  these  things — no  right  to 
express  an  opinion  that  they  violate  the  doctrine,  dis- 
cipline, and  worship  of  the  church,  and  ought  not  to 
be  allowed — no  right,  even  through  the  report  of  a 
Committee  of  Clergymen,  to  take  notice  that  such 
things  exist  at  all!!  This  is  the  inevitable  result  of 
the  teaching  in  the  Pastoral — result  do  I  say  ?  It  is 
in  substance  the  very  teaching  itself.  Nay,  further. 
If  the  clergy,  horror-stricken  at  such  innovations, 
should  unite  in  any  measures  which  might  tend  to  ob- 
struct the  Bishop's  plans,  or  should  aid  or  abet  any 
expression  of  opinion  thereupon  by  a  "conventional 
act,"  they  might  find  themselves  on  trial  for  con- 
spiracy, before  members  of  the  order  of  the  Holy 
Cross — be  convicted  under  the  canons  of  Chalcedon, 
and  degraded  from  the  ministry:  while  any  unfortu- 
nate layman,  in  like  case  offending,  might  be  in  a  sum- 
mary manner  p.YP.nmmiinip.atpd,  nnrlpr  somp  canon  law 
of  England,  or  France,  or  Spain,  or  Italy. 

I  am  not  willing  to  believe  that  the  Bishop  intends 
us  injury  by  this  claim  of  authority.  Nor  do  I  sup- 
pose that  he  has  carried  out,  in  his  own  mind,  that 
claim  to  its  full  and  legitimate  consequences.  I  doubt 
not  that  he  believes  himself  justly  entitled  to  what 
he  has  claimed,  and  is  far  from  designing  to  make 
what  he  deems  a  bad  use  of  it.  On  the  contrary,  I 
do  him  the  justice  to  believe  that  he  seeks  our  spiritual 
good  as  best  to  be  promoted  by  implicit  submission — 
by  being  to  him  the  plastic  clay  in  the  hands  of  the 


BISHOP  IVES'  PASTORAL  LETTER.  101 

potter.  But  this  submission  we  cannot  make — this 
plastic  clay  we  cannot  become.  We  may  not  yield  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Bishop  higher  reverence,  or  allow 
them  to  possess  greater  authority  than  Jewell  claims 
for  the  ancient  Fathers  of  the  church,  or  those  Fathers 
claimed  for  themselves.  Of  them  Jewell  says — "  They 
were  witnesses  unto  the  truth.  They  were  worthy 
pillars  and  ornaments  in  the  church  of  God.  Yet  may 
they  not  be  compared  with  the  word  of  God.  We 
may  not  build  upon  them :  we  may  not  make  them  the 
foundation  and  warrant  of  our  conscience :  we  may 
not  put  our  trust  in  them :  our  trust  is  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord.'5  Again  he  says,  "In  this  sort  did  Origen, 
and  Augustine,  and  other  doctors  of  the  church,  speak 
of  themselves,  and  of  theirs  and  the  writings  of  others, 
that  we  should  so  read  them  and  credit  them  as  they 
agreed  with  the  word  of  God.  This  kind  of  writing 
is  to  be  read  not  with  the  necessity  of  believing  them, 
but  with  a  liberty  to  judge  of  them"  (Jewell's  Trea- 
tise of  the  Holy  Scriptures.) 

Upon  the  whole,  I  submit  to  the  judgment  of  every 
Member  of  the  Church  whether  we  have  not,  in  this 
Diocese,  abundant  cause  for  "great  agitation  and 
alarm;"  whether  powers  are  not  asserted  over  us 
never  before  claimed  in  any  Protestant  Church,  and 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  conscience; 
whether,  in  appearance  at  least,  our  Bishop  does  not 
incline  strongly  towards  the  opinions  and  practices  of 
the  Church  of  Rome ;  whether  his  doctrines  and  his 
claims  fairly  carried  out  will  not  establish  a  spiritual 


102  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

lordship  and  tyranny  over  us,  disannul,  in  effect,  the 
laws  made  by  our  Church  "to  maintain  the  common 
liberty  "  both  of  clergy  and  laity,  and  establish  in  the 
Diocese  an  Episcopal  despotism. 

If  there  be  this  cause  for  alarm — if  our  rights  be  in 
danger — if  the  common  liberty  be  threatened,  we  are 
neither  stocks,  nor  stones,  nor  insensate  brutes.  We 
are  men — freemen — free  Protestant  Episcopalians — 
quite  as  able  to  read  and  understand  the  Liturgy  and 
Articles,  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Church,  as 
to  read  and  understand  the  Bishop's  Pastorals ;  and  we 
must  and  will  do  what  we  can  to  assist  and  defend  our 
endangered  rights,  and  maintain  our  threatened  liberty. 

In  Church,  as  in  State,  we  are  law-abiding  men,  we 
submit  to  all  lawful  authority,  but  we  submit  to  no 
other.  An  undefined  and  unlimited  power  we  know 
not  in  Church  or  State,  and  knowing  none  such,  we 
need,  in  justice  to  ourselves,  and  in  duty  to  the  church, 
discredit  and  repel  every  claim  to  it.  To  our  Bishops 
and  other  Clergy  we  render  obedience  when  they  act 
in  accordance  with  the  known  law  of  the  church — of 
our  church — but  then  only.  We  treat  their  persons 
wTith  respect  and  kindness,  attend  their  ministrations 
with  deference,  and,  we  trust,  with  devout  affections, 
and  are  thankful  for  a  body  of  clergy  of  whom  so 
many  are  pious,  learned,  diligent,  and  faithful.  We 
willingly  supply  their  temporal  wants  according  to  our 
ability,  and.  feel  ourselves  far  more  than  repaid  by  the 
spiritual  good  which  we  receive  from  them.  These 
sentiments,  united  with  a  most  affectionate  personal 


103 

attachment,  were  truly  felt,  and  freely  and  constantly 
manifested  towards  our  Bishop  by  the  laity  of  the  Di- 
ocese, and  by  few,  if  any,  more  than  by  myself. 

But  our  conscience  and  judgment  we  cannot  yield 
in  blind  submission  to  any  Bishop.  We  must  stand 
by  and  for  the  church,  our  "  true  loving  mother,"  as 
we  have  known  her,  and  cannot  consent  to  have  her 
character  changed  by  infusions  from  Rome  or  Oxford. 
We  love  her  not  only  because  she  is  the  church  of  our 
fathers,  but  also  and  chiefly  because  her  ministry  is 
apostolic-— because  her  theology  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Bible — because  her  Liturgy  is  full  of  "  evangelical  sen- 
timents," "fervent  devotions,"  and  "majestic  simpli- 
city " — and  because  her  discipline  is  the  gentle  and 
wholesome  restraint  of  known  rules  adopted  by  com- 
mon consent,  a  restraint  as  far  removed  from  despotism 
on  the  one  hand  as  from  licentiousness  on  the  other. 
Deprive  her  of  these  attributes,  and  we  should  love 
her  no  longer.  We  are  not  prepared  to  admit  that 
any  living  man  understands  her  principles  better  than 
did  White,  and  Hobart,  and  Ravenscroft ;  and  we  ut- 
terly deny  that  any  man  has  a  right  by  importations 
from  another  church  or  country — Rome  or  England — 
ancient  or  modern — to  add  to  the  doctrine,  discipline, 
or  worship  of  her  Liturgy,  Articles,  and  Canons,  any 
thing  which  she  has  thought  proper  to  omit,  to  con- 
demn thereby,  or  to  discard  therefrom. 

On  this  position,  let  the  Bishop  be  assured  he  will 
find  the  people  of  his  Diocese  standing  as  fearlessly  and 
firmly  as  he  will  stand  upon  his  doctrine  of  "  the  ne- 


104  AN  EXAMINATION  OF 

cessity  of  priestly  absolution  to  the  remission  of  sins." 
They  will  continue  to  join  in  the  worship  of  the  church 
according  to  the  directions  of  the  Prayer-Book — to 
hear  with  reverence  the  "  declaration  of  absolution  " 
made  to  the  penitent  and  believing,  not  as  though  it 
wTere  a  "  periodical  sponge,"  but  as  Hobart  taught  it 
to  be,  "  an  edifying  and  consolatory  part  of  public  ser- 
vice;" will  prepare  themselves  for  the  Holy  Commu- 
nion by  self-examination  and  prayer  to  Almighty  God, 
bewailing  before  Him  their  sins,  letting  "Him  alone/3 
as  Hooker  and  Chrysostom  advise,  "  see  them  at  their 
confession,"  and  deeming  no  confession  to  men  neces- 
sary, except  to  those  whom  they  may  have  injured; 
will  resort  to  their  minister  or  other  godly  man,  only 
when,  by  such  self-examination  and  prayer  to  God, 
they  cannot  obtain  quietness  of  conscience,  but  require 
"further  counsel  and  comfort;"  and  then,  opening  to 
him  "  their  grief,"  and  showing  him  "  their  trouble 
and  doubt,"  (not  confessing  to  him  their  mortal  sins, 
one  by  one,)  will  seek  at  his  hands,  not  absolution,  but 
godly  counsel  and  advice.  Yea,  though  they  should 
find  themselves  to  be  like  the  man  mentioned  by  St. 
Luke,  "  full  of  leprosy,"  yet  will  they  not  be  discou- 
raged, but,  like  him,  will  cry,  "  Lord,  if  thou  wilt, 
thou  canst  make  me  clean;"  or,  like  David,  "  Forgive 
my  sin,  for  it  is  great"  And  knowing  from  St.  Paul 
that  we  have  "  a  great  High  Priest,"  who,  though  he 
"  is  passed  into  the  heavens,"  can  yet  be  "  touched 
with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities,"  we  will  "  come 
boldly  unto  the  throne  of  grace,"  and  through  this  one 


105 

Mediator  between  God  and  man — without  the  inter- 
vention of  saints  in  heaven,  or  priests  on  earth — will 
trust  "  that  we  may  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  to 
help  in  every  time  of  need." 

This  is  the  view  concerning  repentance,  confession, 
and  forgiveness  which,  in  this  Diocese,  we  believe  the 
Scriptures  have  taught,  and  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  approves.  And  if  we  persevere  in  practising 
the  duty  thus  taught  and  approved,  we  have  an  abiding 
and  steadfast  confidence,  that,  dying  in  the  faith  and 
communion  of  the  church,  we  shall  die  also  "  in  a  rea- 
sonable, religious,  and  holy  hope,"  which  will  not  be 
disappointed  in  the  last  great  day,  when  we  shall  all 
stand  at  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  each  to  give  ac- 
count of  himself  to  God — and  when  the  rule  of  judg- 
ment will  be,  not  what  said  the  Bishop,  but  what  said 
the  Lord. 

Raleigh,  N.  C,  October,  1849. 


"  I  reckon  not,  my  brother,  that  ye  would  have  us  so  to  read 
yo7tr  books,  as  if  they  were  written  by  the  apostles  or  pro- 
phets."— St.  Augustine  to  St.  Hierom,  quoted  by  Jewell. 


What  is  heresy?  "  Heresy  is  the  pertinacious  denial  of  some 
truth  certainly  revealed." — Rev.  Wm.  Palmer  in  his  Treatise 
on  the  Church. 


CHEAl^ 

BOOKS 
PUBLISHED  BY  H.  HOOKER, 

CORNER  OF  CHESTNUT  AND  EIGHTH  STREETS, 

PHILADELPHIA. 

WlLBERFORCE   ON    "  THE   INCARNATION   VIEWED    IN 

Relation  to  Mankind  and  the  Church." 

This  is  a  most  important  work  for  the  Church.  "  It  is  a  won- 
derful Book." — Ed.  of  Church  Review. 

"First  Principles  of  the  Doctrine  of  Christ," 
by  Rev.  M.  P.  Parks,  of  Trinity  Church,  N.  Y. 

This  is  an  earnest  and  forcible  exposition  of  the  subject  of 
baptism,  and  the  training  of  children  in  the  Church. 

Rev.  H.  Blunt's  Works,  in  4  vols.,  12mo. 

These  works  have  passed  through  more  than  twenty  editions 
in  England,  and  six  editions  in  this  country.  They  are  written 
with  great  beauty  of  style  and  spirit. 


DEPOSITORY  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  UNION. 

H.  Hooker  has  become  the  agent  of  this  institution,  and 
keeps  always  a  fall  assortment  of  its  publications.  Church 
books  of  all  descriptions.  Sunday  Schools  and  Parish  Li- 
braries supplied  on  the  best  terms.  Bibles  and  Prayer  Books 
in  all  varieties,  at  greatly  reduced  prices. 


Princeton   Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01186  7001 


